The changing landscape of ecological networks

(1)

HAL Id: hal-02456105

https://hal-univ-tlse2.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02456105

Submitted on 27 Jan 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access

archive for the deposit and dissemination of

sci-entific research documents, whether they are

pub-lished or not. The documents may come from

teaching and research institutions in France or

abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents

scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,

émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de

recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires

publics ou privés.

The changing landscape of ecological networks

Ruppert Vimal, Raphael Mathevet, John Thompson

To cite this version:

Ruppert Vimal, Raphael Mathevet, John Thompson. The changing landscape of ecological

net-works. Journal for Nature Conservation, Elsevier, 2012, 20, pp.49-55. �10.1016/j.jnc.2011.08.001�.

�hal-02456105�

(2)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Journal

for

Nature

Conservation

j o ur na l ho m e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . d e / j n c

The

changing

landscape

of

ecological

networks

Ruppert

Vimal, Raphael

Mathevet

∗

, John

D. Thompson

UMR5175Centred’EcologieFonctionnelleetEvolutive,CNRS,1919routedeMende,34293Montpelliercedex5,France

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received24November2010 Receivedinrevisedform19July2011 Accepted2August2011 Keywords: Biodiversity Ecologicalnetwork Model Post-normalscience Integratedconservation

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Ecologicalnetworksprovideanoperationalmethodologyfortheimplementationofregional conserva-tionstrategyandplanningthatgoesbeyondprotectedareadesignationtointegratethespatialscaleof ecologicalprocessesandsocialissues.However,thepertinenceofecologicalnetworksasaconservation strategyhasrecentlyprovokeddebate.Inthispaperwepresentadiscussionoftheconceptuallimits ofecologicalnetworkimplementationinordertoidentifytheissueswhichunderliethetransitionof modelsandknowledgefromsciencetoaction.Ourexaminationillustrateshowamorecollectiveand explicitmanagementofcomplexityanduncertaintyconcerningtheecologicalprocesseswhichsuch net-workssupposedlyintegratecouldgreatlystrengthenthelinksbetweenscienceandpolicyandthereby provideformoreeffectivespatiallandscapeplanning.Inthisway,theecologicalactionnetworkcould bereframednotasasimpleobjectivebutratherasameansforintegratedconservationpolicy.

Introduction

Inresponsetothechallengeofaworldwidebiodiversitycrisis (Pimm,Russell,Gittleman, &Brooks1995),theconceptof inte-gratedconservationhasbeenincreasinglydeveloped(Margoluis 1998;McShane2004)tobringenvironmentalissuestothe fore-frontincontemporarypractice(Rosenzweig2003b).Thisreflects a growingrecognitionof theimportanceofglobalconservation issuesrelatedtotheprotectionofnaturalheritagesitesandthe maintenanceoftheecosystemfunctionsnecessaryforthe devel-opmentandwell-beingofhumansocieties(MEA2005).However, twentyyearsaftertheconcept’semergence,itsimplementation remainsquestionable.Insufficientlyclearobjectives,theabsence of a participative approach and a short-term vision in project monitoringandevaluationhavealllimitedtheefficiencyand suc-cessofintegrated conservation action(Brandon&Wells 1992). Forintegratedconservationtobeeffective,sustainable develop-mentmustbeincorporatednotonlyintoorganisational,structural andmaterialdimensionsofagivenregionorterritory(Laganier, Villalba,&Zuindeau2002)butalsointoitsday-to-day manage-mentandthedecision-makingprocesses(Mathevet&Mauchamp 2005;Mormont,Mougenot,&Dasnoy2006).

Thescienceof conservationbiology hasbeendescribedas a “crisisdiscipline”which developedinresponsetothe“needfor action”inthe1980s(Primack1993;Soule1986)andeversince asa“mission-driven”discipline(Meine,Soulé,&Noss2006).As

∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+330467613277;fax:+330467410616. E-mailaddresses:raphael.mathevet@cefe.cnrs.fr,ruppert.vimal@cefe.cnrs.fr

(R.Mathevet).

biodiversityhasbecomeamajorissueinpublicdebate(Johns2010; Palmeretal.2004),understandingtherelationshipsbetweenthe conceptsandecologicalprincipleswhichformtheframeworkof conservationscienceandthepracticalobjectivesofconservation managersanddecisionmakershasbecomeakeyissue.

Amajordevelopmentinthescienceofconservationbiologyhas beentherecognitionthatbiodiversityconservationmustgobeyond protectedareaboundariestoincorporatethespatialscaleof ecolog-icalprocesses(DeFries,Hansen,Turner,Reid,&Liu2007;Grumbine 1994;Hansen&DeFries2007;Poiani,Richter,Anderson,&Richter 2000;Thompsonetal.2011),theimpactofhumanactivities out-sideofprotectedareas(DeFriesetal.2007)andthecontributionof human-dominatedlandscapestoconservationbyreducing extinc-tionrates(Rosenzweig2003a).

Inthiscontext,theconceptofecologicalnetworkshas,inthe last decade,becomeanimportantfeatureofconservation plan-ning (Jongman & Kristiansen 2001; Jongman & Pungetti 2004; Jongman,Kulvik,& Kristiansen 2004;Mougenot& Melin2000; Opdam,Steingröver,&Rooij2006).Intherecentlandscape ecol-ogyandplanningliterature,theecologicalnetworkconcepthas indeedbeenpromotedas“animaginativespatialconceptthathelps tofocusonecologicallyrelevantstructuresinthelandscapeand clarifyargumentsinprioritysetting”(Opdametal.2006,p.329). Inadditionthisconcepthasbeenpresentedasatoolwhich facil-itatescommunicationamong actors(Jongman&Pungetti2004; Jongmanetal.2004).However,in theconservationbiologyand ecologyliteraturetherehasbeenrecentdebateonthepertinence oftheecologicalnetworkconcept(Boitanietal.2008).

In this paper we question the role of the representation of anecologicalmodelinordertoanalysethetransitionfromthat which raisesimplicit awarenessof theecologicalnetwork (“the

(3)

50 R.Vimaletal./JournalforNatureConservation20 (2012) 49–55

conceptualecological network”) totheecological network as a toolforconservation(“theecologicalactionnetwork”).Wediscuss howtheimplementationofanecologicalnetworkcanprovidethe opportunitytoreviseboththeconceptualandactionmodelsofan integratedconservationpolicy.Inthisway,wepresenttheissuesat stakerelatedtotherelativityandcontingencyofknowledgeused forbiodiversityconservationanddiscusstheneedforaﬁrmand articulatedrelationshipbetweenscienceandpolicy.

Theimplicitrecognitionoftheconceptualecological network

Thestudyofthedifferentorganisationallevelsofbiodiversity requiresthatthelimitsofecologicalsystemsbedefined,hencethe recoursetothestudyofpopulations,communitiesandecosystems. Theserepresentations,andthemodelsdependentonthem,are nec-essaryforscientiststounderstandbiodiversityanditsdynamicsbut arenotbasedonfixedorclosedperimeters(VonBertalanffy1968). Indeed the open and complex character of ecological systems haslong beenrecognised,ashastheneedtointegrate human-inducedperturbationsintothestudyoftheirdynamics(Pickett& White1985;Wu&Loucks1995).Inaddition,twomajor concep-tualdevelopmentshaveoccurredinconservationbiology:first,the recognitionoftheneedtomaintainspecies’geneticdiversityand evolutionarypotentialinordertoensurecontinueddiversification (Stockwell,Hendry,&Kinnison2003)andsecond,theimportance ofafunctionalapproachfortheinterpretationofthespatialscales ofecosystemfunction(Grumbine1994,1997)andtheinteractions betweenorganismsandtheirenvironment(DeFriesetal.2007). Theseincludetheneedforanecosystemmanagementapproach toconservationinprotectedareas(Zorn,Stephenson,&Grigoriev 2001)andthenecessaryintegrationofregionalprocessesof coloni-sationandextinctionintoourunderstandingofspeciesdiversity (Ricklefs1987)andpopulationdynamics(Hanski1999a,1999b).

Over the last fifty years, agriculturalintensification, urbani-sationandassociatedlanddevelopmentandtheconstructionof transportnetworkshavegivenrisetoanunprecedented fragmen-tationofnatural habitats andlandscapes(Stanners&Bourdeau 1995).Withtherealisationthatsuchchangesinland-userepresent oneofthegreatestcontemporarythreatstobiodiversity(Salaetal. 2000), thestudyofhabitatfragmentationhasbecomealeading researchthemeinconservationbiology(Fahrig2003).Following itsinitialreferencetotheislandmodelsofMacArthurandWilson (1967)andthedevelopmentoftheconceptofmeta-populations (Hanski 1999a,1999b),thescientificcommunityhasprincipally addressedtheroleoftwofactorsinthemaintenanceofspeciesin agivenarea(Soulé&Simberloff1986).First,theminimalsizeofa populationforitsviability(Shaffer1981)whichisoftenrelatedto aneffectivesurfaceareaofhabitat—theminimumdynamicarea (Pickett &Thompson1978).Second,it hasbecomeincreasingly recognisedthattherelationshipbetweendispersalcapacity and thespatialarrangementofhabitatpatchesin thelandscapecan affectspecies’persistenceonaregionalscale(Lindenmayeretal. 2008;Wiens,Stenseth,Vanhorne,&Ims1993).Thepertinenceof ecologicalconnectivity,beitthroughecologicalcorridorsoracross moreorlesspermeablelandscapeshasthusbecomeakeyelement inthedevelopmentoftheecologicalnetworkconcept.

Tostudy ecological connectivity,a great majority of studies havefocusedonindividualspecies.Thereductionisminherentin suchaspeciesbasedapproach(Franklin1993)andtheinherent differencesamongspeciesintheirdispersalcapacityand move-mentpatternshasledtoagrowingappreciationofthecomplexity underlyingany attempt toquantify theecological connectivity ofagivenlandscape(Lindenmayeretal.2008;Thompsonetal. 2011).In addition,many studieshavereliedonquantifyingthe

structural component of habitat fragmentation (with diverse indicesoffragmentationbasedonthesurfaceandisolationof habi-tatpatches) withlittle integrationof biological information on individual,population,orspeciesmovements(Tischendorf&Fahrig 2000a;Tischendorf&Fahring2000b),nodoubtduetotherelative simplicityoftheformer.Therehasalsobeenmuchdebateonthe functionalsigniﬁcanceofecologicalcorridorsamongsitesofhigh biodiversityvalue,mostlyintermsoftheecologicalrelevanceand thefactthatinmanyareasthelandscapeisnotabinarylandscape ofnaturalareasandinhospitableterrain(suchasinbuilt-upareas orinhighlyintensiﬁedagriculturalsystems)butamixofnatural habitatsandproductionlandscapesthatvaryintheirpermeability ofdifferentorganisms,manyofwhommayevendependonthe matrixfortheirmovementsandlife-cycle(Chetkiewicz,Clair, & Boyce2006;Hilty,Lidicker,&Merelender2006;andseebelow).

Therehasthus beengrowinginterest intheneedtoprotect biodiversityintheordinarylandscapesthatsupporthuman activ-ities(e.g.urbanand agriculturalareas)notonlyintermsofthe needtoconserveandrestorehabitatsandtheir interconnected-ness (Jongman &Pungetti 2004; Jongmanet al. 2004)but also for their direct contribution to biodiversity conservation. This contributionhasbeenidentiﬁedindifferentways.Oneexample concernsthereconciliationecologyofRosenzweig(2003a) who argues how biodiversity conservation in thematrix of human-dominatedlandscapesisnownecessarytoreduceextinctionrates. Anotherexamplecanbeseeninthemajorroleofnovel ecosys-temsinthemaintenanceoffunctionalassemblagesandnotjust individualspecies(Hobbsetal.2006).Policyshouldthuscontinue toevolvetoreducetheconceptualdividebetweenprotectedand unprotectedareasinordertointegratetheglobalfunctioningof ecologicalsystemsintolandscapemanagementandplanning.

TheConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD)whichconcluded atRiodeJaneiroonJune5th1992markedamajorsteptowards integratingprotectedareaswiththeirsurroundinglandscapes.In itsArticle 8on insitu conservationtheCBD invites each party to“promoteenvironmentallysoundandsustainabledevelopment in areas adjacent toprotected areas witha view to furthering protection of these areas”. The creation of Man and Biosphere reservessincetheearly1970s(UNESCO1996)andcurrentmoves toproducea morefunctionalzoningofthesereservesand eco-logical connectivity between core areas of biosphere reserves andtheirsurroundings(UNESCO2008)alsoillustratethistrend. There has thus been a signiﬁcant move towards policy which integratesthenotionsofecologicalconnectivityandregional pro-cesseswithinlandscapemanagementandplanning(Bonnin2008). Hence,althoughstrictlyprotectedareascontinuetobedesignated, protected areas’ strategies have diversiﬁed to integrate human activities;astheE.U.HabitatsDirectiveattests.

Anincreasingawarenessoftheimportanceofspatialecological andevolutionaryprocessesinbiodiversityconservationstrategies (Balmford, Mace, &Ginsberg,1998; Poianietal. 2000;Pressey, Cowling, &Rouget 2003; Rouget, Richardson, &Cowling 2003; Smith,Bruford,&Wayne1993)hasthuscontributedtoachangein focusfromreservedesignationtotheelaborationofconservation managementstrategiesforwholeterritories(Mougenot&Melin 2000).Theexistenceofaconceptualecologicalnetwork,deﬁnedby theinterdependencyofnaturalsystemswhichcontributestotheir integrityonallspatialandtemporalscales,hasbecomeimplicitly recognisedbothfromascientiﬁcandstrategicviewpoint.

Theecologicalactionnetwork

Duringthe1970s,theecologicalnetworkconceptemergedand receivedspecialattention,notably inEuropewiththeadoption ofaPan-EuropeanEcologicalNetwork(PEEN;Bonninetal.2007;

(4)

Europe1996)tomaintainacoherentcombinationofzones repre-sentingthenaturalandsemi-naturallandscapeelements.Earlyon, theIUCNadoptedthenotionofecologicalcorridorsinits world-widebiodiversityscheme(IUCN1980)whichwaslaterfollowed byitsrecognitionoftheimportanceofecologicalnetworksatthe WorldConservationCongressin1996.Morerecently,numerous initiativeshavesprunguponcontinental,nationalandregional scales.

Inpractice,network planningisbasedonthe“patch,matrix, corridor”modelintheclassictextonlandscapeecologyofForman &Godron(1986)andcorrespondinglystrivestoidentifycore bio-diversityzones,bufferzonesandconnectingcorridors(Jongman& Pungetti2004;Jongmanetal.2004).Therecognitionofcoreareas, oftenalreadydelimitedintheformofprotectedareas,isafairly simpletask. Implicithereis theneedtobuffersuchareasfrom externalhumanimpactswithasurroundingbufferzoneandlink themtooneanotherbyecologicalcorridors.Thesestructural com-ponentsprevailinplanningdocuments(Vos&Opdam2007),most ofwhichattempttoidentifycontinuumsofhabitattypesacrossthe landscape(Berthoud,Lebeau,&Righetti2004).

Theecologicalnetworkconcepthasthusbeendevelopedfor theparticularcontextofhighlyhuman-dominatedlandscapesin Europe,whereithasobtainedunprecedentedsocialandpolitical success(Jongman&Pungetti2004;Jongmanetal.2004). Ecologi-calnetworksportrayanattractiveandsimplemodelforvisualising biodiversityconservationonascalethatgoesbeyondthe bound-aries of protected areas and links biodiversity conservation to land-use planning(Opdam,Foppen, &Vos 2001; Opdam et al. 2006).Therepresentationsofanecologicalnetwork,andnotably thecorridor, aresufﬁcientlyvague,ﬂexibleandmetaphoricalto winthemsupportamong,andfavourtheirappropriationby,alarge numberofactors(VanderWindt&Swart2008).Nonetheless,this emphasisonanoperationalrepresentationthatfocusesona struc-turalconnectivitywhichsupposedlyallowsforamorecomplete consideration of biodiversity, causes ecological network imple-mentationtooversimplifycomplexecologicalconcepts(Boitani, Falcucci,Maiorano,&Rondinini2007).

Althoughtheimportanceofconnectivityforspeciespersistence is clear in many cases (Boitani et al. 2007; Lindenmayer et al. 2008),therehasbeenmuchscientiﬁcdebateonthepositive, neg-ativeorneutralaspectsofecologicalcorridors(Beier&Noss1998; Haddad1999;Haddad&Baum1999;Breininger&Carter2003; Crooks&Sanjayan2006).Animportantissueherewhichisoften neglectedinthedebateisthatcorridorsareonlyoneelementofthe differentpossiblewaysinwhichconnectivityisachieved(Levey, Bolker,Tewksbury,Sargent,&Haddad2005;Simberloff,Farr,Cox, &Mehlman1992;VanderWindt&Swart2008).Connectivityisnot simplyameasureofspatialseparationbasedonpatchsizeand dis-tance,butameasureoftheextenttowhichspecies,resourcesand ecologicalprocessescanmoveinalandscape(Lindenmayeretal. 2008;Thompsonetal.2011).Theseauthorsstressthatthemodel suffersfromitsbinaryvisionofaterritorycomprisingfavourable ordetrimentalzones.Thisapproachneglectstheextenttowhich thematrixispermeabletospeciesmovementsandecological pro-cesses. Such a model is poorly adapted to large parts of rural Europeandelsewhere,wherelow-intensityhumanactivitieshave greatlyaffectedthespatialorganisationofbiodiversityand con-tributedto theevolution of a heterogeneousmosaic landscape with multiple habitats and multiple usages. In a non exhaus-tivemanner,wedetail heresomekeypoints whichjustify this criticism.

First,therelianceofanapproach basedonidentifying corri-dorsascontinuouselementsofaparticularhabitattypeishighly problematicsinceconnectivityisoftenmaintainedinnaturally dis-continuousandvariablelandscapes.Indeed,forsomespecies,what isimportantisconnectivityamongdifferenttypesofhabitatfor

differentactivities(foraging –nesting forexample)or different stagesofthelife-cycle(seasonalhabitats).

Second,thelogicofecologicalnetworkpolicyisbasedonthe ideathatbyconnectingpatchesonecanincreaseeffective popula-tionsizeandfavourtheoverallpersistenceofspeciesinaregion (Opdametal.2006).Thismaywellbetrueinmanycases; how-ever,insomesituationsaprimaryconservationobjectivemaybe toincrease the sizeof individualpopulations byreinforcement strategiesbecauseifindividualpopulationsaretoosmalltheyare unlikelytoexportindividuals.Inthissituation,structural connec-tivity willnot equatetofunctional connectivityand arguments basedonspatialcohesionwillbequestionable.Basically,the propo-sitionthatecologicalnetworksprovideasolutiontofragmentation doesnotholdifindividualpatchesaretoosmalltoexport individ-uals.

Third,theproblemwithastructuraldescriptionoflandscape andhabitatfragmentationisthatisolatedcommunitiesmaytake alongtimetoshowtherealeffectsoffragmentation.Forexample, speciesrichnessingrasslandfragmentshasbeenshowntobemore determinedbyhistoricalpatternsoflandscapeconfigurationthan bythecontemporaryconfigurationofthelandscape(Lindborg& Eriksson2004).Recommendingcorridorsbasedoncontemporary habitatconfigurationandapurportedneedforenhanced connec-tivitymaythusbeflawed.

Overall,theemergence ofecological networksquestions the possibility of identifyinga spatial setof landscapeelements to defineastrategyforbiodiversityinitsentirety.Eveninsome inten-sivelyhuman-dominatedlandscapes,andcertainlyformorerural landscapeswhicharemaintainedbyextensivepastoralfarming andothernon-intensiveagriculturalpractices,anecological net-workismorethanjustanetworkinitstruesenseofinterconnected nodes.Wearguethattheconceptuallimitationsdescribedabove stemfromanoverrelianceontranslatingmapsintoprocessesand arather poorand confuseddefinitionandrepresentation ofthe processessuchmapsconceal.Inadditiontothetraditionally recog-nisedecologicalcomponents(coreandbufferzones,corridors),the remaininglandscapematrix shouldalsobeidentifiedas having criticalecologicalfunctions(Hiltyetal.2006).Theecological net-workconceptneedstointegratethecomplexityofinteractionsand interdependencyacrossthelandscapematrix.

Systemsandnetworks

Thedistinctionbetweentheconceptualecologicalnetworkand thedevelopmentofanecologicalaction networkillustrates the difﬁcultyofaccountingfornature’scomplexitywhenitcomesto action and questions the integrationof complex and uncertain knowledge into conservation strategies (Cullen 1990; Hayward 2006;Moore etal. 2009).Mougenot(2003, p.57)captured the situationalltoowellwhensheobservedthatinthecaseof eco-logicalnetworks“insteadofwitnessingtheimmediateacceptanceof thisconceptwehaveobservedthatanewdebatehasbegun”.

Bydefinition,theconceptualecologicalnetworkdoesnothave amaterialbasis,norisitperceptible.Itsrealisationrequiresfirst andforemostbasicknowledgeonthefunctionanddynamicsof ecologicalsystems,whosecomplexitymeansthatour understand-ingisplaguedwithuncertainty.Indeed,biodiversityconservation ingeneraloccursinanuncertainworld(Burgman,Lindenmayer, &Elith2005).Thediversityofrelevantsystemsmustbe consid-eredand incorporatedthrough amultitude ofmodels. Onehas alsotounderstandthelinkswhichgivetheconceptualnetworkits coherence.Theconceptionofecologicalnetworksandtheir inter-pretationrequirestheuseofaconceptualframeworkborrowed fromsystemstheory,networkscienceandphilosophy.According toDupuy(1985),ifasystemisdefinedinternallybyitssub-systems

(5)

andexternallybyitsrelationshipswiththeenvironment,itcanbe representedasanetwork.Incontrasttoasystem,anetworkallows forcommunicationbecauseitsstructuredoesnothaveahierarchy. Connectivityis tothenetwork whatorganisationis tothe sys-tem,andshouldbeconsideredas“allthesystem’srelationships whichallowittofunction”.Consequently,theacknowledgement ofaconceptualecologicalnetworkclearlydemonstratesitslinkto interdependencyandtoprocesses.Thenetworkistherelational machineparexcellence(Bressand1995).

As discussed above, the ecological action network is based primarilyonalandscapesystem’sstructuralaspects,through sup-posedlyidentiﬁable elementssuchascoreareasof biodiversity orecologicalcorridors.Inadditiontothesinglespeciesapproach whichisoftenadopted,reductionismmanifestsitselfintwoother ways.First,understandingtheactionnetworkdependsexclusively onthelandscapescale.Second,therepresentationoflinksbetween differentelements(orsubsystems)ofaneventuallandscape sys-temisensuredbyauniquemodel.Inotherwords,understanding thewayecologicalnetworksoperateuniquelythroughthe“patch, corridor,matrix”modelislikeconsideringanarea’ssocialnetwork exclusivelythroughthephysicalconnectionswhichinterlink dif-ferentvillagepopulations(numbersandlengthsofroads,etc.).But asweknow,understandingsocialnetworksrequiresmanylevels ofanalysis(suchasrelationsbetweenindividualswithinvillages) aswellasunderstandingalternativemeansofcontact(suchasthe telecommunicationsnetwork).

Thischangeinecologicalactionnetworkingislinkedto analo-gies made possible by the polysemy of the network concept (Bakis1993).Theecologicalactionnetwork hasseenmuch suc-cessbecauseithasbeenoftenrenderedanalogoustootherbetter knownnetworkswhicharecharacteristicofoursociety,suchas transportor communicationnetworks, (Keulartz 2007;Van der Windt&Swart 2008).AsMusso(1999)pointsout:“frombeing natural,thenetworkbecomesartiﬁcial,(.)theengineerconceives andconstructsitwhilethedoctorobserves”.

Modellingandaction

Theimplementationofconservationpoliciesreflectsthenature of their supporting knowledge and highlights the question of knowledge sharing between scientists and field managers and betweendifferentdisciplines. Scientists usemodelsfor specific purposesinordertotestpredefinedhypotheses.Theymakethe choiceofpertinentmodelsandcollectivelyjudgethecontingency and reductionism theyengender. The “patch, corridor, matrix” modelwasthusformalisedwithaspecificaim:toestablishalink betweenthespatialorganisationoflandscapeelementsand bio-diversitydynamics.However,theecologicalnetworkmodelhasa differentmeaninginthescientificcommunity,whereitisusedto testhypothesesrelativetothefunctioningofpopulationsina land-scape,comparedtoinalocalsociety,whereitbecomestheunique representationofthecomplexityofecologicalsystemsinagiven area.Asdiscussedabove,thespatialarrangementoflandscape ele-mentsisthusoftenusedasabasistoestablishastronglinkbetween structureandfunction(Bruter1976).Thisunderlinestheissueof scientificsimplificationandofthesignificanceofitsuseinland planning.Indeed,themodel’stransmissionissociallysituatedand thusdependentonasocio-politicalcontextforthedevelopmentof conservationpolicies.

Amodelcanbeperceivedasusefulforscientiststotest hypothe-ses and to gradually reﬁne knowledge (Vinck 1999). In much thesameway,amodel isameanstofacilitateinteractions and thetransferofknowledge betweenstakeholdersandfor reﬂec-tiononthepoliticalandtechnicalcomplexityofdecision-making (ComMod2009).Wethereforeproposeashiftfromtheecological

action networkas anobjectivetowards anetwork which more clearlyrepresentsameansofintroducinggovernanceand collec-tivethoughtandactionforlanddevelopmentandconservation. Thisshiftunderlinesthedebatesurroundingtherepresentations and conversionmodesnecessary fortheelaboration of a social compromisecapableofincorporatingtherangeofknowledgeon themechanismsofsocio-ecologicalsystems.Inthiswayamodel willatleastindicatetheimportanceoflinkingscienceand socio-politicsinordertoresolveecologicalproblems(Latour1999),the ﬁrststeptowardsanindispensablyco-constructedandintegrated conservationpolicy.

Science–societyinteractions:integratedconservationas post-normalscience

Ecologicalprocesses andbiodiversity conservationissuesare nolongerdefinedsimplyintermsofnaturalandfactualrealities; theyalsoincludethepluralityofsocial realitiesin which scien-tistsworkandwhich arecontinuouslyshapedbynewscientific developmentsandtechnologicalprogress.Withinthecontextof ecologicalnetworkdevelopment,thereisuncertaintyonwhatto doandagreaterawarenessoftheplaceofpeopleinknowledge production(Mougenot&Melin2000).Duringthelastdecade,in mostdevelopedcountries,sciencehasbeenconfrontedwithahuge declineinitscognitiveauthority,socialinfluenceandpublic confi-dence.Scienceandtechnologyhavebeenprogressivelyseparated fromthepublicarenaandtheirplaceoccupiedbyenvironmental andconservationNGOs(Nowotny,Scott,&Gibbons2001).With theever-growingacceptancethatnon-scientistsrepresentsources ofexpertise,ithasbecomeincreasingimportanttoshareand dis-cussscientific andnon-scientificexpertiseinalegitimate social process(Callonetal.2001).Indeed,onanoperationallevel, conser-vationsciencedependsincreasinglyonsocialconsensusandthus ontheactionplanitself,hencethetightinterrelationshipbetween knowledgeanddialogue(Habermas1987).

Confronted withuncertainty, improvingthe qualityof deci-sionsandfreeingthemfromstrictlyscientiﬁcandtechnicalcriteria havebecomecrucialelementsinthescience–policyinterface.Here, thenotionof post-normality (Funtowicz&Ravetz 1993) impli-catesstakeholdersinaschemefortheelaborationofdecisionsand knowledgeaswellasoftheevaluationofthequalityofboth knowl-edgeandprocedures(Francis&Goodman2010).Byconsideringthe pluralityofthelegitimacyofaction,thesimultaneousconstruction ofbothknowledgeandactionisencouragedinapragmaticway (Funtowicz&Ravetz1993;Light2003).Aprincipaladvantageof thisapproachliesinitssocialrobustness;itcontainsapluralistic planthatintegratesdiverseopinionsandusesmediationtoolsand techniquestofacilitateexchangeamongscience,societyandpolicy (ComMod2006).However,itisessentialherethatallparticipants recognisethattheycontributetoacommongoal(Latour1997; Stengers2009)and thattheyare onequal standing(Habermas 1987).Thismeansdevelopingthebasicrespectofdiverseopinions bydevelopingthepowertothink,imagineandlearnmoreabout eachother(Stengers2002,2009).

Oneofthekeyissuesfrequentlyraisedbyconservation scien-tistsin relationtopost-normal scienceisthat itmayimplicitly devaluetheprofessionalopinionsofscientistsbysuggestingthat allactorsareequalandallviewpointsvalid.Thisrecurrentopinion relies ona fundamental misunderstanding onhow the contex-tualisationofconservationsciencesoccurs.Differencesbetween scientistsandnon-scientistsremainintermsoftheircompetence and skills.The cynicalpostures of somescientists are common pitfalls,andotherfailuresoninterdisciplinarity,action-research, participatoryprocesses and community-based management are well studied and identiﬁed (Liu 1997; Reed 2008). As Isabelle

(6)

Stengershasargued,wehavetogobeyondtheparticipatory injunc-tionandtodevelopaprocessthatcreatesan“operatingcontext” thatallowsusto“makecommoncause”.Here,itisnecessaryto gobeyondaparticipatoryapproachtoputstakeholdersina posi-tionwheretheycanunderstand,evaluateandsynthesiseavailable knowledgeinordertoconfrontitwiththerealitiesoftheir ter-ritoryandtoallowthemtoco-producetheﬁnaldecision.Based onscientiﬁc knowledge,the process should create a new type ofknowledge,onethat ispragmatic,local,andreadyfor action aswellasbeingvalidatedandevaluatedbythegroupofactors. Post-normal,contextualisedandmode2sciencethusdonotreject normalscience(DeMarchi,Funtowicz,&GuimaraesPereira2001; Funtowicz&Ravetz1993,1994;Funtowicz,Ravetz,Shepherd,& Wilkinson2000; Nowotnyet al. 2001;Van der Windt &Swart 2008).

Ecologicalnetworkstrategiesthusinviteustoexperimenta fun-damentalreconstructionoftherelationshipsbetweendisciplines, scientists,administrationsandstakeholdersatthescalesofregions andterritories.Therearethreemaincriticalpointswhichremainat stakehere.First,thereisstillaneedtodevelopscientiﬁcandpublic knowledgeinawaywhichallowsformoreinteractivefeedbacks fromsocietytoscienceandviceversa.Second,itisnecessaryto givefullappreciationandcommitmenttothetemporalprocesses underlyingecologicalnetworkfunction.Third,atransparentand participativeprocesswiththeinvolvementofavarietyof stake-holdersinatrustbuildingandcapacitybuildingprocessremains tobemorefullydeveloped.

Finally,wearguethattheprocessofmakingmapsremainsa majorissuetoensureareliableandsociallyrobuststrategy. How-ever,toallowtheshiftfromtheaction networkasa finalityto thenetworkasameansforintegratedconservation,thescientific processshouldnottargetaprecisespatialidentificationofthe net-workassuggestedbythetraditionalecologicalnetworkmodel,but insteadstrivetowardsspatialrepresentationswhichallow stake-holderstovisuallyunderstandwhich biodiversityelementsand which humanpressuresareinvolved, and how toprioritiesfor actioninspaceandtimecanbeidentified.Thus,throughthe map-pingprocess,theroleofthescientistsintheparticipativeapproach isnottoidentifytheecologicalnetworkandwhereandhowto protectit,butmoretofacilitateasocialdebateconcerningits rep-resentation.

Conclusion

Traditionally publicpolicyhasdistinguishedprotected areas from production landscapes. However, the recognition of the functionalecologicalinterdependencyofsuchspacesandthe inte-grationofthetruespatialscaleofecologicalfunctionsintoland-use planninghasbeenincreasingadvocated.Indeed,conserving land-scapesofordinarybiodiversityhasbecomeakeyissue,towhich ecological networkscan now greatly contribute.The ecological networkconceptadvocatesthereconsiderationofthedistinction betweennatureconsideredtohaveavalueforconservationand morebanal“ordinary”nature.Thishasrequiredtheintegrationof theaims,perceptionsandvaluesofamuchlargernumberofactors (Mougenot2003)andthustheneedtodevelopmoreintricatelinks betweeneconomicdevelopment,ecologyandsociety(Rosenzweig 2003a).

Although the generalisation of the “patch, corridor, matrix” modelhasfacilitated itssocialappropriation,wearguethatthe realchallengeis toplanthecollectiveconstructionof a shared visionofnaturesothattheecologicalactionnetworkcanbecome a means of acting on the conceptual ecological network. It is paramounttorecogniseherethatanoverlyimportantrole ofa uniquespatial(mapping)representationoftheecologicalnetwork

concept–whichaswediscussaboveisoftenadopted–willonly reinforcetheperceptionofahuman-dominatedinﬂuenceonthe worldandonnature,wherehumansocietiesremaindistinctfrom thenaturalworld.Itisnecessarytogobeyondthissimple carto-graphicrepresentationofecologicalnetworkstoencompasstheir truefunctionandtheroleofhumanactivitieswithinthenetwork. Althoughtheﬁnancingofananimalpassagewayacrossamajor infrastructureorcontractsforlateharvestscanbepunctually use-fulforbiodiversityconservationandecologicalconnectivityacross thelandscape,webelievethatthepassagefromtheconceptof eco-logicalnetworkstoactionsfortheirelaborationshouldintegrate anapproachwhichfacilitatesthereconciliationofhumansocieties andnature.

Wenowneedanapproachbasedoncollectivelearningforsocial changeandapragmaticconstructivistpositiontoclearlyidentify theinputofstakeholders.Byadvocatingthecoexistenceofhumans andnature,theecologicalnetworkconceptcouldallowforatighter integrationbetweenscienceanddecisionmakingwhichprovides foramorecompleteinclusionofconservationobjectivesaspartof societies’goalsandvalues.Thedevelopmentofecologicalnetwork strategiesforbiodiversityconservationthusnecessitatesthought ontheplaceofhumansinnatureandtheneedtoconstructanew positiverelationshipbetweenmanandnature.Weargueelsewhere thatthisrelationshipmaybeidentiﬁedintheformofecological solidarity(Mathevetetal.2010; Thompsonet al.2011).Such a conceptionofecologicalnetworkswouldbeamajorsteptowards anecosystemicandeco-centricviewforbiodiversityconservation (Callicott1999;Larrère&Larrère1997;Léopold1949).

The extent to which ecological networks are succeeding in securingthedesiredcompatibilitybetweenbiodiversity conserva-tionandresourceuseisnotyetclear.Byfocussingmoreonthe needsoflocalpopulationsthanoneconomicgrowth,byplacing thecritiqueofscienceandtheco-constructionofprojectsatthe heartoftheprocess,wearguethatparticipativeterritory devel-opmentcouldofferasustainablealternativetopolicywhichhas prevaileduntilnow.Thesedevelopmentswouldcontributeto plac-ingecologicalnetworksclearlyonthemapofeffectiveconservation strategies.

Acknowledgements

WethankElisabethSalverdaforherhelpwiththeEnglish ver-sionandLenoreFahrigforheradviceonapreliminaryversionof themanuscript.Thisworkwasfundedbythe“AgenceNationale delaRecherche”(contract05-BDIV-014,ABIME),theEU(contract 226852,SCALES)andtheLanguedoc-RoussillonRegionalCouncil.

References

Bakis,H.,1993.Lesréseauxetleursenjeuxsociaux,“Quesais-je?”Paris,France. Balmford,A.,Mace,G.M.,&Ginsberg,J.R.(1998).Thechallengestoconservation

inachangingworld:Puttingprocessesonthemap.ConservationBiologySeries (Cambridge),1,1–28.

Beier,P.,&Noss,R.F.(1998).Dohabitatcorridorsprovideconnectivity?Conservation Biology,12(6),1241–1252.

Berthoud,G.,Lebeau,R.P.,&Righetti,A.(2004).Réseauécologiquenational(REN). Rapportﬁnal.BerneOfﬁceFédéraldel’Environnement,desForêtsetduPaysage. Boitani,L.,Falcucci,A.,Maiorano,L.,&Rondinini,C.(2007).Ecologicalnetworks

asconceptualframeworksoroperationaltoolsinconservation.Conservation Biology,21(6),1414–1422.

Boitani,L.,Sinibaldi,I.,Corsi,F.,DeBiase,A.,Carranza,I.D.,Ravagli,M.,etal.(2008). Distributionofmedium-tolarge-sizedAfricanmammalsbasedonhabitat suit-abilitymodels.BiodiversityandConservation,17(3),605–621.

Bonnin,M.(2008).Lescorridorsécologiques:versuntroisièmetempsdudroitdela conservationdelanature?Paris,France:L’Harmattan.

Bonnin,M.,Bruszik,A.,Delbaere,B.,Lethier,H.,Richard,D.,Rientjes,S.,etal.(2007). Thepan-Europeanecologicalnetwork:Takingstock.Strasbourg,France:Conseil del’Europe.

Brandon,K.E.,&Wells,M.(1992).Planningforpeopleandparks—Designdilemmas. WorldDevelopment,20(4),557–570.

(7)

Breininger,D.R.,&Carter,G.M.(2003).Territoryqualitytransitionsand source-sinkdynamicsinaFloridaScrub-Jaypopulation.EcologicalApplications,13(2), 516–529.

Bressand,A.,&Distler,C.(1995).Laplanèterelationnelle.Paris,France:Flammarion. Bruter,C.P.(1976).Topologieetperception,t.2:Aspectsneurophysiologiques.Paris,

France:Doin&Maloine.

Burgman,M.A.,Lindenmayer,D.B.,&Elith,J.(2005).Managinglandscapesfor conservationunderuncertainty.Ecology,86,2007–2017.

Callicott,J.B.(1999).Beyondthelandethic,moreessaysonenvironmentalphilosophy. NewYork,USA:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

Callon,M.,Lascoumes,P.,&Barthe,Y.,2001.Agirdansunmondeincertain.Essaisur ladémocratietechnique,LeSeuil,Paris,France.

Chetkiewicz,C.L.B.,Clair,C.C.S.,&Boyce,M.S.(2006).Corridorsfor conserva-tion:Integratingpatternandprocess.AnnualReviewofEcologyEvolutionand Systematics,37,317–342.

ComMod.(2006).Modélisationd’accompagnement.InF.Amblard,&D.Phan(Eds.), Modélisationetsimulationmulti-agents:applicationsauxsciencesdel’hommeet delasociété.Londres,UK:HermesSciences.

ComMod.(2009).Lapostured’accompagnementdesprocessusdeprisededécision: lesréférencesetlesquestionstransdisciplinaires.InD.Hervé,&F.Laloë(Eds.), Modélisationdel’environnement:entrenaturesetsociétés.Paris,France:Quae, NSS-Dialogues,collectionIndisciplines.

Crooks,K.R.,&Sanjayan,M.(2006).Connectivityconservation.NewYork,NY,USA: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Cullen,P.(1990).Theturbulentboundarybetweenwaterscienceandwater man-agement.Freshw.Biol.,24(1),201–209.

DeMarchi,B.,Funtowicz,S.,&GuimaraesPereira,A.(2001).Fromtherighttobe informedtotherighttoparticipate:RespondingtotheevolutionoftheEuropean legislationwithICT.InternationalJournalofEnvironmentandPollution,15(1), 1–21.

DeFries,R.,Hansen,A.,Turner,B.L.,Reid,R.,&Liu,J.G.(2007).Landusechange aroundprotectedareas:Managementtobalancehumanneedsandecological function.EcologicalApplications,17(4),1031–1038.

Dupuy,G.(1985).Systèmes,réseauxetterritoires.Principesderéseautiqueterritoriale. Paris,France:Pressesdel’Ecolenationaledespontsetchaussées.

Europe,1996.ThePan-EuropeanBiologicalandLandscapeDiversityStrategy,a visionforEurope’sNaturalHeritage,CouncilofEurope,UNEP,ECNC. Fahrig,L.(2003).Effectsofhabitatfragmentationonbiodiversity.AnnualReviewsof

Ecology,EvolutionandSystematics,34,487–515.

Forman,R.T.T.,&Godron,M.(1986).Landscapeecology.NewYork,NY,USA:John Wiley.

Francis,R.A.,&Goodman,M.K.(2010).Post-normalscienceandtheartofnature conservation.JournalforNatureConservation,18(2),89–105.

Franklin,J.F.(1993).Preservingbiodiversity—species.Ecosystems,orLandscapes. EcologicalApplications,3(2),202–205.

Funtowicz,S.,Ravetz,J.R.,Shepherd,I.,&Wilkinson,D.(2000).Scienceand gover-nanceintheEuropeanunion.ScienceandPublicPolicy,27(5),327–336. Funtowicz,S.O.,&Ravetz,J.R.(1993).Scienceforthepost-normalage.Futures,25,

739–755.

Funtowicz,S.O.,&Ravetz,J.R.(1994).Theworthofasongbird:Ecologicaleconomics asapost-normalscience.EcologicalEconomics,10,197–207.

Grumbine,R.E.(1994).Whatisecosystemmanagement.ConservationBiology,8(1), 27–38.

Grumbine,R.E.(1997).Reﬂectionson“whatisecosystemmanagement?”. Conser-vationBiology,11(1),41–47.

Habermas,J.(1987).Théoriedel’agircommunicationnel.Paris,France:Fayard. Haddad,N.M.(1999).Corridoranddistanceeffectsoninterpatchmovements:A

landscapeexperimentwithbutterﬂies.EcologicalApplications,9(2),612–622. Haddad,N.M.,&Baum,K.A.(1999).Anexperimentaltestofcorridoreffectson

butterﬂydensities.EcologicalApplications,9(2),623–633.

Hansen,A.J.,&DeFries,R.(2007).Ecologicalmechanismslinkingprotectedareasto surroundinglands.EcologicalApplications,17(4),974–988.

Hanski,I.A.(1999a).Habitatconnectivity,habitatcontinuityandmetapopulations indynamiclandscapes.Oikos,87,209–219.

Hanski,I.A.(1999b).Metapopulationecology.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress. Hayward,S.F.(2006).Environmentalscienceandpublicpolicy.SocialResearch,

73(3),891–914.

Hilty,J.A.,Lidicker,W.Z.J.,&Merelender,A.M.(2006).Corridorecology.Thescience andpracticeoflinkinglandscapesforbiodiversityconservation.Washington,DC: IslandPress.

Hobbs,R.J.,Arico,S.,Aronson,J.,Baron,J.S.,Bridgewater,P.,Cramer,V.A.,etal. (2006).Novelecosystems:Theoreticalandmanagementaspectsofthenew ecologicalworldorder.GlobalEcologyandBiogeography,15,1–7.

IUCN,1980.Worldconservationstrategy.LivingResourceConservationfor Sustain-ableDevelopmentInternationalUnionforConservationofNatureandNatural Resources.

Johns,D.(2010).Adaptinghumansocietiestoconservation.ConservationBiology,23, 641–643.

Jongman,R.,&Pungetti,G.(2004).Ecologicalnetworksandgreenways:Concept, design,implementation.[Cambridgestudiesinlandscapeecology.]i–xxi,1–345. Jongman,R.H.G.,&Kristiansen,I.(2001).Nationalandregionalapproachesfor ecologicalnetworksinEurope.CouncilofEuropeNatureandEnvironmentSeries, 110,1–86.

Jongman,R.H.G.,Kulvik,M.,&Kristiansen,I.(2004).Europeanecologicalnetworks andgreenways.LandscapeandUrbanPlanning,68(2-3),305–319.

Keulartz,J.(2007).Usingmetaphorsinrestoringnature.NatureandCulture,2,27–48.

Laganier,R.,Villalba,B.,&Zuindeau,B.(2002).Ledéveloppementdurablefaceau territoire:élémentspourunerecherchepluridisciplinaire.

Larrère,C.,&Larrère,R.(1997).Dubonusagedelanature.Paris,France:Aubier. Latour,B.(1997).Nousn’avonsjamaisétémodernes.Essaid’anthropologiesymétrique.

Paris,France:LaDécouverte.

Latour,B.(1999).Lespolitiquesdelanature.Commentfaireentrerlessciencesen démocratie.Paris,France:EditionslaDécouverte.

Léopold,A.(1949).Almanachd’uncomtédessables.Paris,France:Aubier. Levey,D.J.,Bolker,B.M.,Tewksbury,J.J.,Sargent,S.,&Haddad,N.M.(2005).Effects

oflandscapecorridorsonseeddispersalbybirds.Science,5731(309),146–148. Light,A.(2003).Thecaseforpracticalpluralism.InA.Light,&H.Rolston(Eds.),

Environmentalethics,ananthology.Oxford,UK:Blackwell.

Lindborg,R.,&Eriksson,O.(2004).Historicallandscapeconnectivityaffectspresent plantspeciesdiversity.Ecology,85,1840–1845.

Lindenmayer,D., Hobbs, R. J., Montague-Drake, R.,Alexandra, J., Bennett, A., Burgman,M.,etal.(2008).Achecklistforecologicalmanagementoflandscapes forconservation.EcologyLetters,11(1),78–91.

Liu, M. (1997). Fondements et pratiques de la recherche-action. Paris,France: L’Harmattan.

MacArthur,R.H.,&Wilson,E.O.(1967).Thetheoryofislandbiogeography.Princeton, NJ,USA:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Margoluis,R.,&Salafsky,N.(1998).Measuresofsuccess:Designing,managing,and monitoringconservationanddevelopmentprojects.Washington,W,USA:Island Press.

Mathevet,R.,&Mauchamp,A.(2005).Evidence-basedconservation:Dealingwith socialissues.TrendsinEcology&Evolution,20(8),422–423.

Mathevet,R.,Thompson,J.,Delanoë,O.,Cheylan,M.,Gil-Fourrier,C.,&Bonnin,M. (2010).Lasolidaritéécologique:unnouveauconceptpourlagestionintégrée desparcsnationauxetdesterritoires.NaturesSciencesSociétés,18,424–433. McShane,T.O.,&Wells,M.P.(2004).Gettingbiodiversityprojectstowork:Towards

moreeffectiveconservationanddevelopment.NewYork,NY,USA:Columbia Uni-versityPress.

MEA.(2005).Ecosystemsandhumanwell-being.WashingtonCoveloLondon,USA, UK:IslandPress.

Meine,C.,Soulé,M.E.,&Noss,R.F.(2006).“Amission-drivendiscipline”:Thegrowth ofconservationbiology.ConservatinBiology,20,631–651.

Moore,S.,Wallington,T.,Hobbs,R.,Ehrlich,P.,Holling,C.,Levin,S.,etal.(2009). Diversityincurrentecologicalthinking:Implicationsforenvironmental man-agement.EnvironmentalManagement,43(1),17–27.

Mormont,M.,Mougenot,C.,&Dasnoy,C.(2006).Laparticipationcomposantedu développementdurable:quatreétudesdecas.Vertigo,7,2.

Mougenot,C.(2003).Prendresoindelanatureordinaire.Paris,France:Editionsdela Maisondessciencesdel’homme.

Mougenot,C.,&Melin,E.(2000).Entrescienceetaction:leconceptderéseau écologique.NaturesSciencesSociétés,8(3),20–30.

Musso,P.(1999).Lasymboliqueduréseau.Quarderni,38,69–98.

Nowotny,H.,Scott,P.,&Gibbons,M.(2001).Re-thinkingscience.Knowledgeandthe publicinanageofuncertainty.Cambridge,UK:PolityPress.

Opdam,P.,Foppen,R.,&Vos,C.(2001).Bridgingthegapbetweenecologyandspatial planninginlandscapeecology.LandscapeEcology,16(8),767–779.

Opdam,P.,Steingröver,E.,&Rooij,S.V.(2006).Ecologicalnetworks:Aspatial con-ceptformulti-actorplanningofsustainablelandscapes.LandscapeandUrban Planning,75(3-4),322–332.

Palmer,M.,Bernhardt,E.,Chornesky,E.,Collins,S.,Dobson,A.,Duke,C.,etal.(2004). Ecologyforacrowdedplanet.Science,304,1251–1252.

Pickett,S.T.A.,&Thompson,J.N.(1978).Patchdynamicsanddesignofnature reserves.BiologicalConservation,13(1),27–37.

Pickett,S.T.A.,&White,P.S.(1985).Theecologyofnaturaldisturbanceandpatch dynamics.NewYork,NYUSA:AcademicPress.

Pimm,S.L.,Russell,G.J.,Gittleman,J.L.,&Brooks,T.M.(1995).Thefutureof biodiversity.Science,5222(269),347–350.

Poiani,K.A.,Richter,B.D.,Anderson,M.G.,&Richter,H.E.(2000).Biodiversity conservationatmultiplescales:Functionalsites,landscapes,andnetworks. Bioscience,50(2),133–146.

Pressey,R.L.,Cowling,R.M.,&Rouget,M.(2003).Formulatingconservationtargets forbiodiversitypatternandprocessintheCapeFloristicRegion,SouthAfrica. BiologicalConservation,112(1-2),99–127.

Primack,R.B.(1993).Essentialsofconservationbiology.Sunderland,MA,USA:Sinauer Associates.

Reed,M.S.(2008).Stakeholderparticipationforenvironmentalmanagement:A literaturereview.BiologicalConservation,141(10),2417–2431.

Ricklefs,R.E.(1987).Communitydiversity:Relativerolesoflocalandregional pro-cesses.Science,235,167–171.

Rosenzweig,M.L.(2003a).Reconciliationecologyandthefutureofspeciesdiversity. Oryx,37(2),194–205.

Rosenzweig,M.L.(2003b).Win-WinEcology.Howtheearth’sspeciescansurvivein themidstofhumanenterprise.NewYork,NY,USA:OxfordUniversityPress. Rouget,M.,Richardson,D.M.,&Cowling,R.M.(2003).Thecurrentconﬁgurationof

protectedareasintheCapeFloristicRegionSouthAfrica—Reservationbiasand representationofbiodiversitypatternsandprocesses.BiologicalConservation, 112(1-2),129–145.

Sala,O.E.,Chapin,F.S.,Armesto,J.J.,Berlow,E.,Bloomﬁeld,J.,Dirzo,R.,etal.(2000). Biodiversity—Globalbiodiversityscenariosfortheyear2100.Science,287(5459), 1770–1774.

Shaffer,M.L.(1981).Minimumpopulationsizesforspeciesconservation.BioScience, 31,131–134.

(8)

Simberloff, D., Farr, J. A., Cox, J., & Mehlman, D. W. (1992). Movement corridors—conservationbargainsorpoor investments.Conservation Biology, 6(4),493–504.

Smith,T.B.,Bruford,M.W.,&Wayne,R.K.(1993).Thepreservationofprocess:the missingelementofconservationprograms.BiodiversityLetters,1(6),164–167. Soule,M.E.(1986).Conservationbiology—Thescienceofscarcityanddiversity.

Sun-derland,MA,USA:SinauerAssociates.

Soulé,M.E.,&Simberloff,D.(1986).Whatdogeneticsandecologytellusaboutthe designofnaturereserves?BiologicalConservation,35,19–40.

Stanners,D.,&Bourdeau,P.(1995).Europe’senvironment:TheDobrisassessment. Copenhagen,Denmark:EuropeanEnvironmentalAgency.

Stengers,I.(2002).Sciencesetpouvoirs.Paris,France:Ladémocratiefaceàla techno-science,LaDécouverte.

Stengers,I.(2009).Autempsdescatastrophes.Paris,France:Résisteràlabarbariequi vient,LaDécouverte.

Stockwell,C.A.,Hendry,A.P.,&Kinnison,M.T.(2003).Contemporaryevolution meetsconservationbiology.TrendsinEcologyandEvolution,18,94–101. Thompson,J.D.,Mathevet,R.,Delanoë,O.,Gil-Fourrier,C.,Bonnin,M.,&Cheylan,

M.(2011).Ecologicalsolidarityasaconceptualtoolforrethinkingecological andsocialinterdependenceinconservationpolicyforprotectedareasandtheir surroundinglandscape.ComptesRendusdel’AcadémiedesScience,Biologies,334, 412–419.

Tischendorf,L.,&Fahrig,L.(2000a).Howshouldwemeasurelandscape connectiv-ity?LandscapeEcology,15(7),633–641.

Tischendorf,L.,&Fahring,L.(2000b).Ontheusageandmeasurementoflandscape connectivity.Oikos,90(1),7–19.

UNESCO,1996.Biospherereserves.TheSevillestrategy&thestatutoryframeworkof theWorldnetwork,Paris.

UNESCO,2008.MadridActionPlanforBiosphereReserves(2008–2013).

VanderWindt,H.J.,&Swart,J.A.A.(2008).Ecologicalcorridors,connectingscience andpolitics:ThecaseoftheGreenRiverintheNetherlands.JournalofApplied Ecology,45,124–132.

Vinck,D.(1999).Ingénieursauquotidien.Ethnographiedel’activitédeconceptionet d’innovation.Grenoble,France:PressesUniversitairesdeGrenoble.

VonBertalanffy,L.(1968).GeneralSystemTheory:Foundations,Developments, Appli-cations.NewYork,NY,USA:Braziller.

Vos,C.C.,Opdam,P.,Steingröver,E.G.,&R.,R.(2007).Transferringecological knowl-edgetolandscapeplanning:Adesignmethodforrobustcorridors.InJ.Wu, &R.Hobbs(Eds.),Keytopicsinlandscapeecology.Cambridge,UK:Cambridge UniversityPress.

Wiens,J.A.,Stenseth,N.C.,Vanhorne,B.,&Ims,R.A.(1993).Ecologicalmechanisms andlandscapeecology.Oikos,66(3),369–380.

Wu,J.,&Loucks,O.L.(1995).Frombalanceofnaturetohierarchicalpatchdynamics: Aparadigmshiftinecology.TheQuarterlyReviewofBiology,70,439–466. Zorn,P.,Stephenson,W.,&Grigoriev,P.(2001).Anecosystemmanagement

pro-gramandassessmentprocessforOntarioNationalParks.ConservationBiology, 15,353–362.