Abstracts
Résumé
Des engagements nationaux, européens et internationaux ont été pris pour maintenir et restaurer la connectivité entre habitats naturels face à la perte et à la fragmentation de ces habitats. Dans le même temps, les politiques environnementales dans différents pays mettent en oeuvre la séquence Eviter-Réduire-Compenser (ERC) pour atteindre l’objectif d’absence de perte nette de biodiversité (PPN). La séquence ERC a pour principe d’évaluer l’ensemble des impacts écologiques d’un aménagement, mais les critères et indicateurs permettant de quantifier les impacts sur la connectivité paysagère ne sont pas satisfaisants. Nous proposons une démarche opérationnelle pour évaluer les impacts environnementaux d’un aménagement sur la connectivité des habitats à l’échelle du paysage. Cette démarche est basée sur la théorie des graphes et l’indice EC de « quantité d’habitat atteignable » pour les espèces, qui tient compte de la quantité d’habitat, de la configuration spatiale des taches d’habitats et des capacités de dispersion des espèces. Les trois principaux enjeux de la séquence ERC sont redéfinis au regard de cette démarche. Celle-ci est ensuite appliquée à un réseau d’habitat virtuel où plusieurs scénarios d’évitement, de réduction et de compensation des impacts sont testés et comparés. Nous discutons des atouts et des limites de cette approche pour la séquence ERC et fournissons des recommandations d’application. En conclusion, nous préconisons et justifions une meilleure intégration des trois grandes politiques de conservation de la biodiversité en France : la Loi pour la Reconquête de la biodiversité, de la nature et des paysages, le SRADDET et la Stratégie de création des aires protégées.
Mots-clés :
- politique de conservation,
- absence de perte nette de biodiversité,
- évaluation des impacts environnementaux,
- trame verte et bleue,
- graphes paysagers,
- quantité d’habitat atteignable,
- dispersion des espèces
Abstract
National, European and international commitments have been made to maintain and restore the connectivity of natural habitats to face habitat loss and fragmentation. Meanwhile, environmental policies in different countries worldwide have proposed the mitigation hierarchy to reach the goal of "no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity". The mitigation hierarchy aims at assessing all the ecological impacts of a development project, but the impacts on landscape connectivity are not properly addressed. We propose an operational framework to assess the environmental impacts of a development project on landscape habitat connectivity. This framework is based on graph theory and the equivalent connectivity index EC of "amount of reachable habitat", which takes into account the total amount of habitat, the spatial configuration of habitat patches and the dispersal capacities of the species. We redefine the three main issues of the mitigation hierarchy regarding "no net loss of connectivity". Then, this framework was applied to a simple, virtual network case where several scenarios of impact avoidance, reduction and compensation were tested and compared. We discuss the benefits and limitations of this approach for the mitigation hierarchy and provide practical recommendations for implementation. In conclusion, we advocate and justify a better integration of the three main biodiversity conservation policies in France : the law for the recovery of biodiversity, nature and landscapes, the SRADDET and the strategy for the establishment of protected areas.
Keywords:
- conservation policy,
- no net loss of biodiversity,
- environmental impact assessment,
- green and blue infrastructure,
- landscape graphs,
- amount of reachable habitat,
- species dispersal
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Remerciements
Ce projet a été financé par le ministère de l’Environnement français par la Convention Irstea-DEB 2017-2018 (projet CONNECT-ERC). R. Duflot a été financé par une bourse postdoctorale de la Fondation Kone. Les auteurs remercient les deux évaluateurs anonymes qui ont relu le papier et ont grandement contribué à l’améliorer.
Bibliographie
- Albert, C. H., B. Rayfield, M. Dumitru et A. Gonzalez, 2017, Applying network theory to prioritize multispecies habitat networks that are robust to climate and land-use change, Conservation Biology, 31, 6, pp. 1383-1396.
- Alligand, G., S. Hubert, T. Legendre, F. Millard et A. Müller, 2018, THEMA Évaluation environnementale - Étude d'aide à la définition des mesures ERC, CGDD, MTES, Paris, [en ligne] URL : https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma%20-%20Guide%20d%E2%80%99aide%20%C3%A0%20la%20d%C3%A9finition%20des%20mesures%20ERC.pdf, consulté le 01/02/2019.
- Amsallem, J., R. Sordello, L. Billon et V. Sylvie, 2018, Bilan des Schémas régionaux de cohérence écologique en France : quels apports méthodologiques pour l'identification et la cartographie de la Trame verte et bleue ? Sciences Eaux & Territoires, 25, pp. 4-11.
- Ascensão, F., F. Mestre et A. M. Barbosa, 2019, Prioritizing road defragmentation using graph-based tools, Landscape and Urban Planning, 192, DOI : 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103653
- Avon, C. et L. Bergès, 2013, Outils d'analyse de la connectivité des habitats. Rapport projet DIACOFOR, Convention DEB-MEDDE / Irstea, Irstea, Aix-en-Provence, 31 p. [en ligne] URL : http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr/sites/default/files/references_bibliographiques/diacofor_outils_connectivite_2013_avon_berges.pdf, consulté le 25/10/2019.
- Avon, C. et L. Bergès, 2016, Prioritization of habitat patches for landscape connectivity conservation differs between least-cost and resistance distances, Landscape Ecology, 31, 7, pp. 1551-1565.
- Avon, C., L. Bergès et P. Roche, 2014, Comment analyser la connectivité écologique des trames vertes ? Cas d'étude en région méditerranéenne, Sciences Eaux & Territoires, 14, pp. 14-19.
- Belisle, M., 2005, Measuring landscape connectivity: The challenge of behavioral landscape ecology, Ecology, 86, 8, pp. 1988-1995.
- Bergsten, A. et A. Zetterberg, 2013, To model the landscape as a network : A practitioner's perspective, Landscape and Urban Planning, 119, pp. 35-43.
- Bezombes, L., S. Gaucherand, T. Spiegelberger, V. Gouraud et C. Kerbiriou, 2018, A set of organized indicators to conciliate scientific knowledge, offset policies requirements and operational constraints in the context of biodiversity offsets, Ecological Indicators, 93, pp. 1244-1252.
- Bigard, C., S. Pioch et J. D. Thompson, 2017, The inclusion of biodiversity in environmental impact assessment : Policy-related progress limited by gaps and semantic confusion, Journal of Environmental Management, 200, pp. 35-45.
- Boitani, L., A. Falcucci, L. Maiorano et C. Rondinini, 2007, Ecological networks as conceptual frameworks or operational tools in conservation, Conservation Biology, 21, 6, pp. 1414-1422.
- Briggs, S. et M. D. Hudson, 2013, Determination of significance in Ecological Impact Assessment : Past change, current practice and future improvements, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, pp. 16-25.
- Bruggeman, D. J., M. L. Jones, F. Lupi et K. T. Scribner, 2005, Landscape equivalency analysis : methodology for estimating spatially explicit biodiversity credits, Environmental Management, 36, 4, pp. 518-534.
- Bull, J. W., A. Gordon, J. E. M. Watson et M. Maron, 2016, Seeking convergence on the key concepts in « no net loss' policy, Journal of Applied Ecology, 53, 6, pp. 1686-1693.
- Carreras Gamarra, M. J., J. P. Lassoie et J. Milder, 2018, Accounting for no net loss : A critical assessment of biodiversity offsetting metrics and methods, Journal of Environmental Management, 220, pp. 36-43.
- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 2010, Decision UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2 Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Its Tenth Meeting, [en ligne] URL : https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268, Consulté le 10/10/2018.
- Clauzel, C. et C. Bonnevalle, 2019, Apports de la modélisation spatiale pour la gestion de la trame verte et bleue, Cybergeo : European Journal of Geography, document 900, [En ligne] URL : http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/32333, consulté le 04/10/2019.
- Clauzel, C., D. Xiqing, W. Gongsheng, P. Giraudoux et L. Li, 2015, Assessing the impact of road developments on connectivity across multiple scales : Application to Yunnan snub-nosed monkey conservation, Biological Conservation, 192, pp. 207-217.
- Coulon, A., J. Aben, S. C. F. Palmer, V. M. Stevens, T. Callens, D. Strubbe, L. Lens, E. Matthysen, M. Baguette et J. M. J. Travis, 2015, A stochastic movement simulator improves estimates of landscape connectivity, Ecology, 96, 8, pp. 2203-2213.
- Crooks, K. R. et M. Sanjayan, 2006, Connectivity conservation, Conservation Biology, Cambridge University Press, New York, 712 p.
- Dalang, T. et A. M. Hersperger, 2012, Trading connectivity improvement for area loss in patch-based biodiversity reserve networks, Biological Conservation, 148, 1, pp. 116-125.
- Darses, O. et C. Cantuarias-Villessuzanne, 2017, Sites naturels de compensation, un outil prometteur au service de la biodiversité, CGDD, MTES, Paris, [en ligne] URL : http://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/Th%C3%A9ma%20-%20Les%20sites%20naturels%20de%20compensation.pdf, consulté le 05/10/2019.
- de la Fuente, B., M. C. Mateo-Sánchez, G. Rodríguez, A. Gastón, R. Pérez de Ayala, D. Colomina-Pérez, M. Melero et S. Saura, 2018, Natura 2000 sites, public forests and riparian corridors : The connectivity backbone of forest green infrastructure, Land Use Policy, 75, pp. 429-441.
- Dehouck, H. et J. Ansallem, 2018, Analyse des méthodes de précision des continuités écologiques à l'échelle locale en France. Irstea –UMR TETIS, Centre de ressources Trame verte et bleue. 96p., [en ligne] URL : http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr/sites/default/files/references_bibliographiques/methodes_tvb_echelle_locale_irstea.pdf, consulté le 04/10/2019.
- Duflot, R., C. Avon, P. Roche et L. Bergès, 2018, Combining habitat suitability models and spatial graphs for more effective landscape conservation planning : an applied methodological framework and a species case study, Journal for Nature Conservation, 46, pp. 38-47.
- European Environment Agency (EEA), 2017, Landscapes in transition. An account of 25 years of land cover change in Europe, EEA Report No 10/2017, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 88 p.
- Eigenbrod, F., S. J. Hecnar et L. Fahrig, 2008, Accessible habitat: an improved measure of the effects of habitat loss and roads on wildlife populations, Landscape Ecology, 23, 2, pp. 159-168.
- Fagan, W. F. et J. M. Calabrese, 2006, Quantifying connectivity : balancing metric performance with data requirements, K. R. Crooks and M. Sanjayan, Connectivity Conservation, Cambridge University Press, pp. 297-317.
- Fahrig, L., 2017, Ecological responses to habitat fragmentation per se, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 48, pp. 1-23.
- Foltête, J.C., C. Clauzel et G. Vuidel, 2012. A software tool dedicated to the modelling of landscape networks. Environmental Modelling & Software 38, pp. 316-327.
- Foltête, J. C., X. Girardet et C. Clauzel, 2014, A methodological framework for the use of landscape graphs in land-use planning, Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, pp. 140-150.
- Foltête, J.-C., 2019, How ecological networks could benefit from landscape graphs : A response to the paper by Spartaco Gippoliti and Corrado Battisti, Land Use Policy, 80, pp. 391-394.
- Forman, R. T. T., 1995, Land mosaics : the ecology of landscapes and regions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 632 p.
- Gibbons, P. et D. B. Lindenmayer, 2007, Offsets for land clearing : No net loss or the tail wagging the dog ?, Ecological Management & Restoration, 8, 1, pp. 26-31.
- Girardet, X., 2014, Paysage & infrastructures de transport - modélisation des impacts des infrastructures sur les réseaux écologiques. Thèse de Doctorat en Géographie, Université de Franche-Comté, 261 p.
- Gurrutxaga, M. et S. Saura, 2014, Prioritizing highway defragmentation locations for restoring landscape connectivity, Environmental Conservation, 41, 2, pp. 157-164.
- Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2019, Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 45 p. [en ligne] URL : https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversity-ecosystem-services, consulté le 20/09/2019.
- Jacob, C., F. Quétier, J. Aronson, S. Pioch et H. Levrel, 2015, Vers une politique française de compensation des impacts sur la biodiversité plus efficace : défis et perspectives VertigO - la revue électronique en sciences de l'environnement [En ligne], Volume 14 Numéro 3 | Décembre 2014, URL : http://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/15385; DOI : 10.4000/vertigo.15385
- Jongman, R. H. G., M. Külvik et I. Kristiansen, 2004, European ecological networks and greenways, Landscape and Urban Planning, 68, 2, pp. 305-319.
- Kiesecker, J. M., H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz et B. McKenney, 2010, Development by design : blending landscape-level planning with the mitigation hierarchy, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 5, pp. 261-266.
- Kiesecker, J. M., H. Copeland, A. Pocewicz, N. Nibbelink, B. Mckenney, J. Dahlke, M. Holloran et D. Stroud, 2009, A framework for implementing biodiversity offsets : selecting sites and determining scale, Bioscience, 59, 1, pp. 77-84.
- Kujala, H., A. L. Whitehead, W. K. Morris et B. A. Wintle, 2015, Towards strategic offsetting of biodiversity loss using spatial prioritization concepts and tools : A case study on mining impacts in Australia, Biological Conservation, 192, pp. 513-521.
- Laita, A., J. S. Kotiaho et M. Monkkonen, 2011, Graph-theoretic connectivity measures: what do they tell us about connectivity?, Landscape Ecology, 26, 7, pp. 951-967.
- LaPoint, S., P. Gallery, M. Wikelski et R. Kays, 2013, Animal behavior, cost-based corridor models, and real corridors, Landscape Ecology, 28, 8, pp. 1615-1630.
- Martin, T. G., M. A. Burgman, F. Fidler, P. M. Kuhnert, S. Low-Choy, M. Mcbride et K. Mengersen, 2012, Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science, Conservation Biology, 26, 1, pp. 29-38.
- Maron, M., S. Brownlie, J. W. Bull, M. C. Evans, A. von Hase, F. Quetier, J. E. M. Watson et A. Gordon, 2018, The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy, Nature Sustainability, 1, 1, pp. 19-27.
- Mcrae, B. H., B. G. Dickson, T. H. Keitt et V. B. Shah, 2008, Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation, Ecology, 89, 10, pp. 2712-2724.
- Meurant, M., A. Gonzalez, A. Doxa et C. H. Albert, 2018, Selecting surrogate species for connectivity conservation, Biological Conservation, 227, pp. 326-334.
- Ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (MEDDE), 2013, Lignes directrices nationales sur la séquence éviter, réduire et compenser les impacts sur les milieux naturels, ReferenceS, CGDD DEB, Paris, 232 p.
- Mimet, A., C. Clauzel et J. C. Foltête, 2016, Locating wildlife crossings for multispecies connectivity across linear infrastructures, Landscape Ecology, 31, 9, pp. 1955-1973.
- Newbold, T., L. N. Hudson, A. P. Arnell, S. Contu, A. De Palma, S. Ferrier, S. L. L. Hill, A. J. Hoskins, I. Lysenko, H. R. P. Phillips, V. J. Burton, C. W. T. Chng, S. Emerson, D. Gao, G. Pask-Hale, J. Hutton, M. Jung, K. Sanchez-Ortiz, B. I. Simmons, S. Whitmee, H. B. Zhang, J. P. W. Scharlemann et A. Purvis, 2016, Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary ? À global assessment, Science, 353, 6296, pp. 288-291.
- Pradon, S., M. Mereau, A. Baghli, D. Labarraque et P. Thievent, 2010, OPTIFLUX : une innovation en matière d'ingénierie des infrastructures de transports face aux enjeux de la biodiversité, Travaux, 877, pp. 90-93.
- Quétier, F., B. Regnery et H. Levrel, 2014, No net loss of biodiversity or paper offsets ? A critical review of the French no net loss policy, Environmental Science & Policy, 38, pp. 120-131.
- Rayfield, B., D. Pelletier, M. Dumitru, J. A. Cardille et A. Gonzalez, 2016, Multipurpose habitat networks for short-range and long-range connectivity : a new method combining graph and circuit connectivity, Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7, 2, pp. 222-231.
- Rayfield, B., M. J. Fortin et A. Fall, 2010, The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values, Landscape Ecology, 25, 4, pp. 519-532.
- Rayfield, B., M. J. Fortin et A. Fall, 2011, Connectivity for conservation : a framework to classify network measures, Ecology, 92, 4, pp. 847-858.
- Regnery, B., F. Quétier, N. Cozannet, S. Gaucherand, A. Laroche, M. Burylo, D. Couvet et C. Kerbiriou, 2013, Mesures compensatoires pour la biodiversité : comment améliorer les dossiers environnementaux et la gouvernance ? Sciences Eaux et Territoires, 12, pp. 1-8.
- Sahraoui, Y., J. C. Foltête et C. Clauzel, 2017, A multi-species approach for assessing the impact of land-cover changes on landscape connectivity, Landscape Ecology, 32, 9, pp. 1819-1835.
- Santini, L., S. Saura et C. Rondinini, 2016, A composite network approach for assessing multi-species connectivity: an application to road defragmentation prioritisation, Plos One, 11, 10.
- Saura, S., 2018, Node self-connections in network metrics, Ecology Letters, 21, 2, pp. 319-320.
- Saura, S. et B. de la Fuente, 2017, Connectivity as the amount of reachable habitat : conservation priorities and the roles of habitat patches in landscape networks, S. E. Gergel and M. G. Turner, Learning Landscape Ecology : A Practical Guide to Concepts and Techniques, Springer, New York, pp. 229-254.
- Saura, S., C. Estreguil, C. Mouton et M. Rodriguez-Freire, 2011, Network analysis to assess landscape connectivity trends : Application to European forests (1990-2000), Ecological Indicators, 11, 2, pp. 407-416.
- Saura, S. et J. Torné, 2009, Conefor Sensinode 2.2 : A software package for quantifying the importance of habitat patches for landscape connectivity, Environmental Modelling & Software, 24, 1, pp. 135-139.
- Saura, S. et L. Pascual-Hortal, 2007, A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning : Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study, Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 2-3, pp. 91-103.
- Saura, S. et L. Rubio, 2010, A common currency for the different ways in which patches and links can contribute to habitat availability and connectivity in the landscape, Ecography, 33, 3, pp. 523-537.
- Sawyer, S. C., C. W. Epps et J. S. Brashares, 2011, Placing linkages among fragmented habitats: do least-cost models reflect how animals use landscapes? Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 3, pp. 668-678.
- Tambosi, L. R., A. C. Martensen, M. C. Ribeiro et J. P. Metzger, 2014, A framework to optimize biodiversity restoration efforts based on habitat amount and landscape connectivity, Restoration Ecology, 22, 2, pp. 169-177.
- Tarabon, S., L. Bergès, T. Dutoit et F. Isselin-Nondedeu, 2109a, Environmental impact assessment of development projects improved by merging species distribution and habitat connectivity modelling, Journal of Environmental Management, 241, pp. 439-449.
- Tarabon, S., L. Bergès, T. Dutoit et F. Isselin-Nondedeu, 2019b, Maximizing habitat connectivity in the mitigation hierarchy. A case study on three terrestrial mammals in an urban environment, Journal of Environmental Management, 243, pp. 340-349.
- Taylor, P. D., L. Fahrig, K. Henein et G. Merriam, 1993, Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure, Oikos, 68, 3, pp. 571-573.
- Underwood, J. G., 2011, Combining landscape-level conservation planning and biodiversity offset programs : a case study, Environmental Management, 47, 1, pp. 121-129.
- Urban, D. L., E. S. Minor, E. A. Treml et R. S. Schick, 2009, Graph models of habitat mosaics, Ecology Letters, 12, 3, pp. 260-273.
- Vasas, V., T. Magura, F. Jordan et B. Tothmeresz, 2009, Graph theory in action: evaluating planned highway tracks based on connectivity measures, Landscape Ecology, 24, 5, pp. 581-586.
- Wawrzyczek, J., R. Lindsay, M.J. Metzger et F. Quétier, 2018, The ecosystem approach in ecological impact assessment: lessons learned from windfarm developments on peatlands in Scotland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 72, pp. 157-165.
- Wende, W., G. Tucker, F. Quétier, M. Rayment et M. Darbi, 2018, Biodiversity Offsets—The European Perspective on No Net Loss of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Springer International Publishing, 252 p.
- Zeller, K. A., K. McGarigal et A. R. Whiteley, 2012, Estimating landscape resistance to movement : a review, Landscape Ecology, 27, 6, pp. 777-797.
- Zeller, K. A., M. K. Jennings, T. W. Vickers, H. B. Ernest, S. A. Cushman et W. M. Boyce, 2018, Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data, Diversity and Distributions, 24, 7, pp. 868-879.