Lack of consideration of ecological connectivity in Canadian environmental impact assessment: Current practice and need for improvement

References

• Aavik T, Holderegger R, Bolliger J. 2014. The structural and functional connectivity of the grassland plant Lychnis floscuculi. Heredity. 112(5):471–478. doi:10.1038/hdy.2013.120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson SF, Bhatia S, Schoolmaster FA, Waller WT. 2000. Treatment of biodiversity impacts in a sample of US environmental impact statements. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 18(4):271–282. doi:10.3152/147154600781767349.
   Google Scholar
• Badr E-SA, Zahran AA, Cashmore M. 2011. Benchmarking performance: environmental impact statements in Egypt. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(3):279–285. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.10.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball M, Noble BF, Dubé M. 2013. Valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects: an analysis of environmental impact assessments in the South Saskatchewan Watershed, Canada. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 9(3):469–479. doi:10.1002/ieam.1333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernhardt JR, Leslie HM. 2013. Resilience to climate change in coastal marine ecosystems. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 5(1):371–392. doi:10.1146/annurev-marine-121211-172411.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.057.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blakley J, Russell J. 2022. International progress in cumulative effects assessment: A review of academic literature 2008–2018. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 65(2):186–215. doi:10.1080/09640568.2021.1882408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calabrese JM, Fagan WF. 2004. A comparison‐shopper’s guide to connectivity metrics. Front Ecol Environ. 2:529–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canter L, Ross B. 2010. State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: the good, the bad and the ugly. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 28(4):261–268. doi:10.3152/146155110X12838715793200.
   Google Scholar
• Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 486(7401):59. doi:10.1038/nature11148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang T, Nielsen E, Auberle W, Solop FI. 2013. A quantitative method to analyze the quality of EIA information in wind energy development and avian/bat assessments. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 38:142–150. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2012.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming K, Tavares D. 2022. Using strategic environmental assessment and project environmental impact assessment to assess ecological connectivity at multiple scales in a national park context. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. doi:10.1080/14615517.2022.2031553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Eon RG, Glenn SM, Parfitt I, Fortin M-J. 2002. Landscape connectivity as a function of scale and organism vagility in a real forested landscape. Conservation Ecology. 6(2):10. doi:10.5751/ES-00436-060210.
   Google Scholar
• Dixo M, Metzger JP, Morgante JS, Zamudio KR. 2009. Habitat fragmentation reduces genetic diversity and connectivity among toad populations in the Brazilian Atlantic coastal forest. Biol Conserv. 142(8):1560–1569. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doelle M, Sinclair AJ. 2019. The new IAA in Canada: from revolutionary thoughts to reality. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 79:106292. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doelle M, Sinclair AJ. 2020. Chapter 24: the Path Forward. In: Doelle M, Sinclair AJ, editors. Impact Assessment in Transition: A Critical Review of the Canadian Impact Assessment Act. Toronto, Canada: Irwin Law. (Accessed on 8 August 2020). Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3754782
   Google Scholar
• Duinker PN, Greig LA. 2006. The impotence of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: Ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ Manage. 37(2):153–161. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0240-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelsparre AH, Shahid A, Fitzpatrick MJ. 2018. Habitat connectivity is determined by the scale of habitat loss and dispersal strategy. Ecol Evol. 8(11):1–7. doi:10.1002/ece3.4072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Environment and Natural Resources. 2016. Healthy land, healthy people: government of the Northwest Territories priorities for advancement of conservation network planning 2016-2021. Yellowknife (NT): Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories; p. 20. (Accessed 1 July 2020). https://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/enr/files/hlhp_cnp_priorities_2016-2021.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fischer TB. 2006. Strategic environmental assessment and transport planning: towards a generic framework for evaluating practice and developing guidance. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 24(3):183–197. doi:10.3152/147154606781765183.
   Google Scholar
• Gannon P. 2021. The time is now to improve the treatment of biodiversity in Canadian environmental impact statements. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 86:10650. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2006. Some common shortcomings in the treatment of impacts of linear infrastructures on natural habitat. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(3):257–267. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.10.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• George C. 2000. Environmental impact prediction and evaluation. In: Lee N, George C, editors. Environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries. Chichester: Wiley; p. 85–110.
   Google Scholar
• German Federal Nature Conservation Act. 2014. [Gesetz über Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz) 2004]. ( retrieved 17.07.2021) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bnatschg_2009/BNatSchG.pdf). Bundesgesetzblatt I, pp. 2542–2579.
   Google Scholar
• Gontier M, Balfors B, Mörtberg U. 2006. Biodiversity in environmental assessment – current practice and tools for prediction. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 26(3):268–286. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2005.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grau S. 2005. Large-scale plans for landscape defragmentation in Germany (Großflächige Planungen zur Landschaftsentschneidung in Deutschland). GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. 14(2):153–162. doi:10.14512/gaia.14.2.19.
   Google Scholar
• Hanusch M, Fischer TB. 2011. SEA and landscape planning. In: Sadler B, Aschemann R, Dusik J, Fischer TB, Partidário MR, Verheem R, editors. Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment. London: Earthscan; p. 257–273.
   Google Scholar
• Heller NE, Zavaleta ES. 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biol Conserv. 142(1):14–32. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IUCN. 2016. IUCN Biodiversity Offsets. URL. Gland (Switzerland): IUCN Issues Brief. https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/biodiversity-offsets 01 02 2020
   Google Scholar
• Jackson ND, Fahrig L. 2011. Relative effects of road mortality and decreased connectivity on population genetic diversity. Biol Conserv. 144(12):3143–3148. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Januchowski-Hartley SR, McIntyre PB, Diebel M, Doran PJ, Infante DM, Joseph C, Allan JD. 2013. Restoring aquatic ecosystem connectivity requires expanding inventories of both dams and road crossings. Front Ecol Environ. 11(4):211–217. doi:10.1890/120168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones F. 2016. Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems. Environmental Reviews. 24(2):187–204. doi:10.1139/er-2015-0073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karlson M, Mörtberg U, Balfors B. 2014. Road ecology in environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 48:10–19. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeley AT, Beier P, Creech T, Jones K, Jongman RH, Stonecipher G, Tabor GM. 2019. Thirty years of connectivity conservation planning: an assessment of factors influencing plan implementation. Environ Res Lett. 14(10):103001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab3234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kindlmann P, Burel F. 2008. Connectivity measures: a review. Landsc Ecol. 23(8):879–890.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurance WF, Arrea IB. 2017. Roads to riches or ruin? Science. 358(6362):442–444. doi:10.1126/science.aao0312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lausche B, Farrier M, Verschuuren J, La Viña AG, Trouwborst A 2013. The legal aspects of connectivity conservation: a concept paper vol 1 (Gland (Switzerland): IUCN).
   Google Scholar
• Lee N, Colley R, Bonde J, Simpson J. 1999. In: Reviewing the quality of environmental statements and environmental appraisals 55. Oxford, United Kingdom: EIA Centre, Department of Planning and Landscape, University of Manchester. 01 08 2020 (pp. 72).
   Google Scholar
• Lees J, Jaeger JAG, Gunn JA, Noble BF. 2016. Analysis of uncertainty consideration in environmental assessment: An empirical study of Canadian EA practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 59(11):2024–2044. doi:10.1080/09640568.2015.1116980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leitão AB, Miller J, Ahern J, McGarigal K. 2006. Measuring Landscapes: A Planner’s Handbook. Washington DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lemieux CJ, Jacob AL, Gray PA. 2021. Implementing Connectivity Conservation in Canada. Waterloo (Ontario, Canada): Canadian Council on Ecological Areas (CCEA), Wilfrid Laurier University. https://ccea-ccae.org/wp-content/uploads/CCEA-OccasionalPaper22-Connectivity-Low.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J. 2007. Tackling the habitat fragmentation panchreston. Trends Ecol Evol. 22(3):127–132. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.11.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Wu J. 2004. Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landsc Ecol. 19(4):389–399. doi:10.1023/B:LAND.0000030441.15628.d6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loomis JJ, Dziedzic M. 2018. Evaluating EIA systems’ effectiveness: a state of the art. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 68:29–37. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2017.10.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magle SB, Theobald DM, Crooks KR. 2009. A comparison of metrics predicting landscape connectivity for a highly interactive species along an urban gradient in Colorado, USA. Landsc Ecol. 24(2):267–280. doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9304-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandelik Y, Dayan T, Feitelson E. 2005. Planning for biodiversity: The role of ecological impact assessment. Conservation Biology. 19(4):1254–1261. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00079.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mimet A, Clauzel C, Foltête JC. 2016. Locating wildlife crossings for multispecies connectivity across linear infrastructures. Landsc Ecol. 31(9):1955–1973. doi:10.1007/s10980-016-0373-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naser HA. 2015. The role of environmental impact assessment in protecting coastal and marine environments in rapidly developing islands: the case of Bahrain, Arabian Gulf. Ocean Coast Manag. 104:159–169. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.12.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble BF. 2020. Introduction to Environmental Assessment: A Guide to Principles and Practice. 4th ed. Don Mills (ON, Canada): Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Noble B, Gibson R, White L, Blakley J, Croal P, Nwanekezie K, Doelle M. 2019. Effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment in Canada under directive-based and informal practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 37(3–4):344–355. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1565708.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson CH. 1993. Improvement of environmental impact analysis by application of principles derived from manipulative ecology: Lessons from coastal marine case histories. Aust J Ecol. 18(1):21–52. doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00433.x.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson K. 2010. Quality of environmental impact statements and variability of scrutiny by reviewers. Environ Impact Assessment Review. 30(3):69–176. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2009.08.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietsch M. 2018. Contribution of connectivity metrics to the assessment of biodiversity–Some methodological considerations to improve landscape planning. Ecol Indicat. 94:116–127. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.05.052.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2021 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (accessed 2021 Feb 12). https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Reck H, Hänel K, Huckauf A 2010. Nationwide Priorities for Re-Linking Ecosystems: Overcoming Road-Related Barriers. University of Kiel and Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, Germany, 23 p. Available at https://www.bfn.de/sites/default/files/BfN/planung/eingriffsregelung/Dokumente/nationwide_priorities_for_re-linking.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Samways MJ, Pryke JS. 2016. Large-scale ecological networks do work in an ecologically complex biodiversity hotspot. Ambio. 45(2):161–172. doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0697-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slootweg R, Mathur V, Kolhoff A. Eds. 2010. Biodiversity in environmental assessment: Enhancing ecosystem services for human well-being. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Söderman T. 2005. Treatment of biodiversity issues in Finnish environmental impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 23(2):87–99. doi:10.3152/147154605781765634.
   Google Scholar
• Steinemann A. 2001. Improving alternatives for environmental impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 21(1):3–21. doi:10.1016/S0195-9255(00)00075-5.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor PD, Fahrig L, Henein K, Merriam G. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos. 68(3):571–573. doi:10.2307/3544927.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson S, Treweek JR, Thurling D. 1997. The ecological component of environmental impact assessment: A critical review of British environmental statements. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 40(2):157–172. doi:10.1080/09640569712164.
   Google Scholar
• Timpane-Padgham BL, Beechie T, Klinger T. 2017. A systematic review of ecological attributes that confer resilience to climate change in environmental restoration. PLoS One. 12(3):e0173812. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173812.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tischendorf L, Fahrig L. 2000. On the usage of landscape connectivity. Oikos. 90(1):7–19. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres A, Patterson C, Jaeger JAG. 2022. Advancing the consideration of ecological connectivity in environmental assessment: Synthesis and next steps forward. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2022.2134619
   Google Scholar
• Vandewoestijne S, Schtickzelle N, Baguette M. 2008. Positive correlation between genetic diversity and fitness in a large, well-connected metapopulation. BMC Biol. 6(1):46. doi:10.1186/1741-7007-6-46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wintle BA, Kujala H, Whitehead A, Cameron A, et al., 2019. Global synthesis of conservation studies reveals the importance of small habitat patches for biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 116(3): 909–914. doi:10.1073/pnas.1813051115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziółkowska E, Ostapowicz K, Radeloff VC, Kuemmerle T. 2014. Effects of different matrix representations and connectivity measures on habitat network assessments. Landsc Ecol. 29(9):1551–1570. doi:10.1007/s10980-014-0075-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar