A PROJECT OF THE WILD FOUNDATION
Habitat Corridors & Landscape Connectivity: Clarifying the Terminology
By: Katie Meiklejohn, Rob Ament & Gary Tabor
Over the past twenty years, conserving landscape connectivity has received increasing recognition as
a key strategy to protect biodiversity, maintain viable ecosystems and wildlife populations and to
facilitate adaptation for wildlife species in the face of climate change. Habitat corridors are the
primary tool used to achieve connectivity in fragmented landscapes. However, confusion about how
best to implement connectivity and employ habitat corridors on the ground stems in part from a
generalized lack of clarity about what we mean when we talk about protecting ‘corridors’ and
‘landscape connectivity.’ We conducted a literature review to gain a better understanding of the
terminology pertinent to landscape connectivity (Table 1). By attempting to synthesize the various
uses of each term, we hope to add clarity to connectivity conversations.
Landscape Connectivity
‘Connectivity’ can be broken down into ‘structural connectivity’ and ‘functional connectivity.’
Structural connectivity refers to the physical relationship between landscape elements whereas
functional connectivity describes the degree to which landscapes actually facilitate or impede the
movement of organisms and processes. Functional connectivity is a product of both landscape
structure and the response of organisms and processes to this structure. Thus, functional
connectivity is both species- and landscape-specific. Distinguishing between these two types of
connectivity is important because structural connectivity does not imply functional connectivity. In
general, when we use the term ‘connectivity’ we are using the functional definition.
Habitat Corridor
Early definitions of habitat corridors approached the concept from a very literal perspective
describing them as ‘linear’ or ‘narrow’ strips of land. But central to the rationale behind corridors is
the capacity to facilitate movement, which occurs in different patterns and processes, and at different
scales depending on the species or ecological process of interest. Thus, habitat corridors need not be
linear or narrow and must be defined from the perspective of the organism or process being targeted
for conservation.
More recent definitions reflect a broadened understanding of habitat corridors, which are now
described as components of the landscape that facilitate the movement of organisms and
Center For Large Landscape Conservation
P.O. Box 1587, Bozeman, MT 59771
www.climateconservation.org
processes between areas of intact habitat. Implicit in this definition are two ideas: (1) corridors
support the movement of both biotic processes (e.g. animal movement, plant propagation, genetic
exchange) and abiotic processes (water, energy, materials); and (2) corridors are process- or species-
specific (Jongman & Pungetti 2004). To help clarify the terminology on corridors that support biotic
processes, Jongman and Pungetti (2004) distinguish between three different types:
Migration Corridor
Migration corridors are used by wildlife for annual migratory movements between source areas
(e.g. winter and summer habitat). An example of a migration corridor is the Path of the
Pronghorn in Wyoming.
Dispersal Corridor
Dispersal corridors are used for one-way movements of individuals or populations from one
resource area to another. Dispersal is critical to the maintenance of genetic diversity within
populations of species and to the persistence of fragmented populations which may require
regular immigration to avoid local extinction.
Commuting Corridor
Commuting corridors link resource elements of species’ home ranges to support daily
movements including breeding, resting and foraging. As such, commuting corridors facilitate
localized movements throughout the landscape important to daily survival and reproduction.
Linkage
Although the term is frequently used synonymously with corridor, ‘linkage’ technically refers to
broader regions of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of multiple species and
maintain ecological processes.
Matrix
Throughout the literature reviewed here, definitions of the ‘matrix’ were generally vague. Most
commonly, the matrix is defined as ‘non-habitat’ and/or the portion of the landscape in which
habitat patches and corridors are ‘embedded’. This very black and white interpretation fails to
capture the myriad land cover types and functional continuum that constitute the matrix. Precisely,
the matrix is a component of the landscape, altered from its original state by human land use, which
may vary in cover from human-dominated to semi-natural and in which corridors and habitat
patches are embedded. In other words, the matrix may be anything from urban development to
agricultural land to grassland or forest. Matrix lands have the potential to function as habitat as well
as the capacity to be barriers to movement. Just as with connectivity, the role played by the matrix
will depend both on its composition and on the unique behavioral response of the species under
consideration.
Center For Large Landscape Conservation
P.O. Box 1587, Bozeman, MT 59771
www.climateconservation.org
Landscape Permeability
In contrast to landscape connectivity – which characterizes the capacity of individual species to
move between areas of habitat via corridors and linkage zones – permeability refers to the degree to
which regional landscapes, encompassing a variety of natural, semi-natural and developed land
cover types, are conducive to wildlife movement and sustain ecological processes. Multi-scale,
multi-stakeholder, sustainable land management strategies that not only target conservation areas
like reserves and corridors, but also target the matrix, including areas of human development, are
essential to achieving landscape permeability.
Scale
In the context of connectivity, scale refers to the spatial and/or temporal dimension in which the
conservation target (i.e. species or process) operates. Since species and processes vary widely in
the distances and timeframes at which they operate, identifying the appropriate scale(s) of the focal
species or process is critical to designing successful connectivity management programs.
Ecological Network
The ecological network concept embodies several key elements: connectivity at the landscape scale,
which is achieved through conservation areas and corridors; permeability at the landscape scale,
which is achieved through buffer zones and sustainable use of the matrix; and incorporation of
human cultural and/or socioeconomic factors with wildlife needs. Thus, we feel Bennett (2004)
aptly defined ecological networks as coherent systems of natural or semi-natural landscape
elements configured and managed with the objective of maintaining or restoring ecological
functions as a means of conserving biodiversity while also providing appropriate opportunities
for the sustainable use of natural resources.
TABLE 1: Review of connectivity terminology
Connectivity Science Terminology
Functional Describes the ease with which individuals can move about Kindlemann & Burel 2008
Connectivity within the landscape as a function of the organism's
behavioral response to landscape elements and the spatial
configuration of the entire landscape.
The extent to which a species or population can move Hilty et al. 2006
among landscape elements in a mosaic of habitat types.
Describes the response of individuals to landscape features Brooks 2003
and the patterns of gene flow that result from these
individual responses.
The degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes Taylor et al. 2003
movement among resource patches.
Describes the combined effects of (1) landscape structure Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000
and (2) the species' use, ability to move and risk of
mortality in the various landscape elements, on the
movement rate among habitat patches in the landscape.
A species-specific characteristic determined by the Monkkonen & Reunnen 1999
interaction between the movement potential of each species
Center For Large Landscape Conservation
P.O. Box 1587, Bozeman, MT 59771
www.climateconservation.org
and landscape structure.
The functional relationship between habitat patches owing With et al. 1997
to the spatial contagion of habitat and the movement
responses of organisms to landscape structure.
Structural Describes the physical relationships among habitat patches Kadoya 2009
Connectivity while ignoring the behavioral response of organisms to
landscape structure.
A product of habitat amount, spatial configuration and Andersson & Bodin 2009
condition across multiple scales.
Describes the shape, size and location of features in the Brooks 2003
landscape.
The spatial contagion of habitat. Monkkonen & Reunnen 1999
Corridor A swath of land intended to allow passage by a particular Beier et al. 2008
wildlife species between two or more wildland areas.
Any explicit spatial area designed, protected or managed to Hoctor et al. 2007
maintain connectivity for focal species or critical ecological
processes.
Any space identifiable by species using it that facilitates the Hilty et al. 2006
movement of animals or plants over time between two or
more patches of otherwise disjunct habitat.
Regions of the landscape that facilitate the flow or Chetkiewicz et al. 2006
movement of individuals, genes and ecological processes.
Narrow, continuous strips of habitat that structurally Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000
connect two otherwise non-contiguous habitat patches.
A linear landscape element that provides for movement Rosenberg et al. 1997
between habitat patches, but not necessarily reproduction.
Linear landscape elements that connect two or more patches Soule & Gilpin 1991
of natural habitat and function to facilitate movement.
Narrow strips of land that differ from the matrix on either Forman & Godron 1986
side.
Linkage Connective land intended to promote movement of multiple Beier et al. 2008
focal species or propagation of ecosystem processes.
Large conservation corridors containing significant areas of Hoctor et al. 2007
habitat while also facilitating connectivity between
conservation areas.
Matrix The rest of the landscape after exclusion of habitat patches Kindlemann & Burel 2008
consisting of patches of non-habitat elements.
Collectively, the communities outside of the community Hilty et al. 2006
type of special interest.
The area between habitable patches. Debinski 2006
The most extensive and connected landscape type. Hess & Fischer 2001
Nonhabitat surrounded by native habitat patches in a Ricketts 2001
landscape.
The environment in which habitat an dlinear patches are Rosenberg et al. 1997
embedded.
Landscape Characterizes the relative potential for animal movement Singleton et al. 2002
Permeability between habitat patches at a regional scale.
Scale The spatial or temporal dimension of an object or process Chetkiewicz et al. 2006
characterized by both grain and extent.
Center For Large Landscape Conservation
P.O. Box 1587, Bozeman, MT 59771
www.climateconservation.org
Ecological A set of nodes and links that simulates landscape suitability Andersson & Bodin 2009
Network as perceived by different organisms.
The ensemble of environmental elements with Blasi et al. 2008
heterogeneous physical and biological features that
maintain their structural and functional heterogeneity
regardless of human activity.
Interconnected systems of conservation lands. Hoctor et al. 2007
A coherent system of natural and/or semi-natural landscape
Bennett 2004
elements that is configured and managed with the objective
of maintaining or restoring ecological functions as a means
to conserve biodiversity while also providing appropriate
opportunities for the sustainable use of natural resources.
Aim to provide the physical conditions necessary for James et al. 2000
ecosystems and species to survive in landscapes also
exploited by economic activities.
References
Andersson, E. and O. Bodin. 2009. Practical tool for landscape planning? An empirical
investigation of network based models of habitat fragmentation. Ecography 32: 123-132.
Beier, P., D.R. Majka and W.D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in the road: choices and procedures for
designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22(4): 836-851.
Bennett, G. 2004. Integrating biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: lessons learned from ecological
networks. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Vi + 55 pp.
Blasi, C. et al. 2008. The concept of land ecological network and its design using a land unit
approach. Plant Biosystems 142(3): 540-549.
Brooks, C.P. 2003. A scalar analysis of landscape connectivity. Oikos 102: 433-439.
Chetkiewicz, C-L.B., C. C. St. Clair and M.S. Boyce. 2006. Corridors for conservation: integrating
pattern and process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 37: 317-342.
Debinski, D.M. 2006. Forest fragmentation and matrix effects: the matrix does matter. Journal of
Biogeography 33: 1791-1792.
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
619p.
Hess, G.R. and R.A. Fischer. 2001. Communicating clearly about conservation corridors. Landscape
and Urban Planning 55: 195-208.
Hilty, J., W.Z. Lidicker Jr. and A.M. Merenlender. 2006. Corridor Ecology. Island Press,
Washington D.C.
Center For Large Landscape Conservation
P.O. Box 1587, Bozeman, MT 59771
www.climateconservation.org
Hoctor, T.S. et al. 2007. Land corridors in the southeast: connectivity to protect biodiversity and
ecosystem services. University of Florida, Geoplan Center.
James, P., J. Ashley and A. Evans. 2000. Ecological networks: connecting environmental, economic
and social systems? Landscape Research 25(3): 345-353.
Jongman, R.H.G. and G. Pungetti. 2004. Ecological Networks and Greenways: Concept, Design,
Implementation. Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y.
Kadoya, T. 2009. Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data. Population Ecology 51: 5-15.
Kindlmann, P. and F. Burel. 2008. Connectivity measures: a review. Landscape Ecology 23: 879-890.
Mönkkönen, M. and P. Reunanen. 1999. On critical thresholds in landscape connectivity: a management
perspective. Oikos 84(2): 302-305.
Ricketts, T.H. 2001. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. The American
Naturalist 158(1): 87-99.
Rosenberg, D.K., B.R. Noon and E.C. Meslow. 1997. Biological corridors: form, function, and
efficacy. BioScience 47(10): 677-687.
Singleton, P.H., W.L. Gaines and J.F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Landscape permeability for large
carnivores in Washington: A geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost
corridor assessment. Research Paper PNW-RP-549. United States Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station.
Soule, M.E. and M.E. Gilpin. 1991. The theory of wildlife corridor capability. In Nature
Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. eds. D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs, pages 3-8. Chipping
Norton, New South Wales, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Taylor, P.D. et al. 1993. Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure. Oikos 68(3): 571-573.
Tischendorf, L. and L. Fahrig. 2000. On the usage and measurement of landscape connectivity.
Oikos 90: 7-19.
Center For Large Landscape Conservation
P.O. Box 1587, Bozeman, MT 59771
www.climateconservation.org
