References
- Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E. 2003. The application of ‘Least-Cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape Urban Plan. 64(4):233–247. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00242-6.
- Atkinson SF, Bhatia S, Schoolmaster FA, Waller WT. 2000. Treatment of biodiversity impacts in a sample of US environmental impact statements. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 18(4):271–282. doi:https://doi.org/10.3152/147154600781767349.
- Balbi M, Petit EJ, Croci S, Nabucet J, Georges R, Madec L, Ernoult A. 2019. Ecological relevance of least cost path analysis: an easy implementation method for landscape urban planning. J Environ Manage. 244:61–68. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.04.124
- Bigard C, Pioch S, Thompson JD. 2017. The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment: policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion. J Environ Manage. 200:35–45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.057
- Bodin Ö, Norberg J. 2007. A network approach for analyzing spatially structured populations in fragmented landscape. LANDSCAPE ECOL. 22(1):31–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9015-0.
- Bodin Ö, Zetterberg A. 2010. MatrixGreen user’s manual: landscape ecological network analysis tool. Stockholm: Stockholm University and Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).
- Byron HJ, Treweek JR, Sheate WR, Thompson S. 2000. Road development in the UK: an analysis of ecological assessment in environmental impact statements produced between 1993 and 1997. J ENVIRON PLANN MAN. 43(1):71–79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560010775.
- Calabrese JM, Fagan WF. 2004. A comparison-shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. FRONT ECOL ENVIRON. 2(10):529–536. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0529:ACGTCM]2.0.CO;2.
- Dickson BG, Albano CM, Anantharaman R, Beier P, Fargione J, Graves TA, Gray ME, Hall KR, Lawler JJ, Leonard PB, et al. 2019. Circuit-theory applications to connectivity science and conservation. CONSERV BIOL. 33(2):239–249. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13230.
- Eppley TM, Santini L, Tinsman JC, Donati G. 2020. Do functional traits offset the effects of fragmentation? The case of large-bodied Diurnal Lemur species. AM J PRIMATOL. 82(4):e23104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23104.
- Etherington TR. 2016. Least-cost modelling and landscape ecology: concepts, applications, and opportunities. Current Landscape Ecology Reports. 1(1):40–53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40823-016-0006-9.
- Gannon P. 2021. The time is now to improve the treatment of biodiversity in canadian environmental impact statements. ENVIRON IMPACT ASSES. 86:106504. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106504
- Geneletti D. 2006. Some common shortcomings in the treatment of impacts of linear infrastructures on natural habitat. E ENVIRON IMPACT ASSE. 26(3):257–267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.10.003.
- Gontier M, Balfors B, Mörtberg U. 2006. Biodiversity in Environmental Assessment–Current Practice and Tools for Prediction. ENVIRON IMPACT ASSE. 26(3):268–286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.09.001.
- Hanski I. 1994. A practical model of metapopulation dynamics. J ANIM ECOL. 63(1):151–162. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/5591.
- Hanski I. 2011. Habitat loss, the dynamics of biodiversity, and a perspective on conservation. Ambio. 40(3):248–255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0147-3.
- Hanski I, Gilpin M. 1991. Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. BIOL J LINN SOC. 42(1–2):3–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00548.x.
- Hanski I, Ovaskainen O. 2003. Metapopulation Theory for Fragmented Landscapes. THEOR POPUL BIOL. 64(1):119–127. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-5809(03)00022-4.
- Howes C, Byholm P, Symes CT. 2020. Forest availability and fragmentation drive movement behaviour of wintering European honey-buzzard Pernis Apivorus in Africa. Ardea. 108(2):115–128. doi:https://doi.org/10.5253/arde.v108i2.a1.
- Huang Z, Yuan P, Huang H, Tang X, Xu W, Huang C, Zhou Q. 2017. Effect of habitat fragmentation on ranging behavior of white-headed langurs in limestone forests in Southwest China. Primates. 58(3):423–434. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-017-0600-4.
- Ims RA, Rolstad J, Wegge P. 1993. Predicting space use responses to habitat fragmentation: can voles microtus oeconomus serve as an Experimental Model System (EMS) for capercaillie grouse tetrao urogallus in boreal forest? BIOL CONSERV. 63(3):261–268. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(93)90722-D.
- Karlson M, Mörtberg U, and Balfors B. 2014. Road ecology in environmental impact assessment. ENVIRON IMPACT ASSE. 48:10–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.04.002
- Levins R. 1969. Some demographic and genetic consequences of environmental heterogeniety for biological control. Bull Entomol Soc Am. 15:237–240.
- MacArthur RH, Wilson EO. 2001. The theory of island biogeogrpahy. Princeton (N J): Princeton University Press.
- McRae BH. 2006. Isolation by Resistance. Evolution. 60(8):1551–1561. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb00500.x.
- McRae BH, Kavanagh DM. 2011. Linkage mapper connectivity analysis software. Seattle WA: The Nature Conservancy.
- McRae B, Shah VB, Mohapatra TK. 2008. Circuitscape (C) 2008-09. Version 4.05. Licensed under LGLP. http://www.circuitscape.org/ [computer program]. Version 4.0.5.
- Minor ES, Urban DL. 2007. GRAPH THEORY AS A PROXY FOR SPATIALLY EXPLICIT POPULATION MODELS IN CONSERVATION PLANNING. ECOL APPL. 17(6):1771–1782. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1073.1.
- Mörtberg U, Zetterberg A, Gontier M. 2007. Landskapsekologisk analys i Stockholms stad. Habitatnätverk för eklevande arter och barrskogsarter. Miljöförvaltningen (Stockholms stad).
- Pascual-Hortal L, Saura S. 2006. Comparison and development of new graph-based landscape connectivity indices: towards the priorization of habitat patches and corridors for conservation. LANDSCAPE ECOL. 21(7):959–967. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-0013-z.
- Roberge JM, Angelstam P. 2004. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. CONSERV BIOL. 18(1):76–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00450.x.
- Rolstad J, Wegge P. 1987. Distribution and size of capercaillie leks in relation to old forest fragmentation. OECOLOGIA (Berlin). 72(3):389–394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377569.
- Saura S, Pascual-Hortal L. 2007. A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning: comparison with existing indices and application to a case study. Landscape Urban Plan. 83(2–3):91–103. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.03.005.
- Saura S, Torné J. 2009. Conefor Sensinode 2.2: a software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity. ENVIRON MODELL SOFTW. 24(1):135–139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.05.005.
- Swanepoel F, Retief F, Bond A, Pope J, Morrison-Saunders A, Houptfleisch M, Fundingsland M. 2019. Explanations for the quality of biodiversity inputs to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in areas with high biodiversity value. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management. 21(2):1950009. doi:https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333219500091.
- Thompson S, Treweek JR, Thurling DJ. 1997. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: a critical review of british environmental statements. J ENVIRON PLANN MAN. 40(2):157–172. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09640569712164.
- Treweek J. 1996. Ecology and evnironmental impact assessment. J APPL ECOL. 33(2):191–199. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2404742.
- Urban D, Keitt T. 2001. Landscape connectivity: a graph theoretic perspective. ECOLOGY. 82(5):1205–1218. doi:https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2001)082[1205:LCAGTP]2.0.CO;2.
- Visconti P, Elkin C. 2009. Using connectivity metrics in conservation planning – when does habitat quality matter? DIVERS DISTRIB. 15(4):602–612. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00564.x.
- Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, Ter Braak CJF, Possingham H. 2001. Toward Ecologically Scaled Landscape Indices. AM NAT. 157(1):24–41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/317004.
- Zetterberg A, Mörtberg UM, Balfors B. 2010. Making graph theory operational for landscape ecological assessments, planning, and design. Landscape Urban Plan. 95(4):181–191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.01.002.