An integrated climate-biodiversity framework to improve planning and policy: an application to wildlife crossings and landscape connectivity

Abstract

Planning and policy are best done through integrated approaches that holistically address multiple sustainability issues. Climate change and biodiversity loss are two of the most significant issues facing our planet. Accordingly, advancements in integrated sustainability planning and policy require a means for examining how certain strategies and actions may align or conflict with these sustainability imperatives. Here, we enhance the knowledge of integrated approaches for addressing sustainability challenges by developing and applying a framework for examining different planning and policy areas in the context of climate action and biodiversity conservation. As a case study, we used wildlife crossing planning and landscape connectivity policy in Canada, which is currently piecemeal, fragmented, and could benefit from an integrated approach. The study was conducted in two stages. First, we developed an analytical framework for examining issues in the context of climate action and biodiversity conservation co-benefits and trade-offs. Then, we applied the framework to wildlife crossing and landscape connectivity issues to elucidate opportunities and challenges for integrated planning and policy. We used a literature review to develop an integrated climate-biodiversity framework (ICBF). ICBF was subsequently applied to wildlife crossing and landscape connectivity planning and policies in Canada. ICBF maps relationships between climate action and biodiversity conservation co-benefits and trade-offs and is organized into six themes: green space, transportation, green infrastructure, food and agriculture, energy, and land management. Applying ICBF to participant interview data produced insights into opportunities and challenges for integrated approaches to wildlife crossing and landscape connectivity by elucidating potential co-benefits and trade-offs such as alignments between stormwater management and aquatic crossings (i.e., co-benefits) and potential issues related to energy development and habitat fragmentation (i.e., trade-offs). ICBF has application beyond wildlife crossings, and its continual use and refinement will result in a better understanding of how to effectively implement integrated approaches and transition toward sustainable development paths.

Integrated Sustainability Planning and Local Food Systems: Examining Areas of and Gaps in Food Systems Integration in Community Sustainability Plans for Municipalities across British Columbia

“…New planning frameworks can be expanded beyond Newell et al's [77] work to also include social dimensions that are inextricably related to these sustainability issues, such as those defined by health and wellbeing [78]. Moreover, as indicated through this paper, these new frameworks could (and should) incorporate social justice and equity dimensions; doing such could reveal fundamental questions and considerations, such as how individuals define "healthy" and "good" food differently [63].…”

“…With respect to food systems, this would reframe food systems planning as a means to an end rather than the end itself. For example, Newell et al [77] developed a framework for examining planning challenges through an integrated climate-biodiversity lens, arguing that climate change and biodiversity loss are critical sustainability issues, and any progress toward sustainability must be cognizant of these imperatives.…”

Assessment of Ecological Bridges at Wildlife Crossings in Türkiye: A Case Study of Wild Boar Crossings on the Izmir-Çeşme Motorway

“…Understanding the specific requirements and behaviors of wildlife species holds significant importance in mitigating wildlife–vehicle collisions (WVCs) and preserving ecological connectivity. Here, the biggest challenge in integrated approaches to wildlife crossing planning is the selection of a single species as the target species [ 57 ]. Typically, the selection of vulnerable species as target species is a widely employed method [ 5 ].…”

Wildlife Crossing Infrastructure for a Green Recovery: Emerging Opportunities for Innovation in Post-COVID-19 Recovery Efforts

“…The siloed nature of governance and decision making makes implementation of innovative, cross-discipline projects challenging (Dale, 2001;Lister et al, 2015). The governance and decision making related to WCI is a broad, transdisciplinary endeavor that requires collaboration across silos towards integrated, cohesive action (Dale, 2001;Lister et al, 2015;Newell et al, 2022).…”

“…There are many co-benefits that have been documented in literature beyond the direct benefits of landscape connectivity through implementing WCI. Integrated approaches to landscape connectivity can offer insight into the potential co-benefits, as well as potential trade-offs (Newell et al, 2022). For landscape connectivity projects including WCI, the co-benefits can include benefits relating to green space, transportation, green infrastructure, food and agriculture, energy, and land management (Newell et al, 2022).…”