Natural Environments & Landscape Ecology 

Five Cities & Pismo Lake Green Infrastructure Plan

Green Infrastructure 
Green Infrastructure 
Green Infrastructure 
Green Infrastructure 

Matthew Wilkins - LA 403 & LA 432 - Fall í09 
Natural Environments 

Five Cities & Pismo Lake Green Infrastructure Plan

Corridor and inter-relational matrix

study for the 5 cities.
I begin my study by asking the general question Why do we need biodiversity?

According to the Northern Ireland Environmental Agency “Biological diversity is important because of the
way relationships between species and habitats combine to provide yet more variation in the living world. Any
human activity that diminishes this ‘bio - diversity’ could therefore impoverish our own quality of life, reduce the
resources available to us and ultimately jeopardise the survival of our descendants.”

So if this is essential for the longevity, health, and stabilization of our progeny what are the
major functions and how do we design them?

Fig 1: These Giant Panda’s (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) are endangered due to loss of habitat To answer this question we must first understand what theories or set of studies we can employ.
The conceptual foundations that corridors have been scientifically designed, studied, and implemented
throughout the past help us understand the concrete foundation of this newly advancing study. The
concept of corridor design mainly comes from the assumption that maintaining, protecting, and restoring
connectivity at diverse scales is essential for conserving biodiversity in increasingly fragmented
ecosystems. “The significance of connectivity for conservation rests on three conceptual frameworks:
the equilibrium theory of island biography, the dynamics of populations separated into habitat patches
(metapopulation), and principles of landscape ecology” (Anderson and Jenkins 2006)

Equilibrium theory of island biography is essentially a scientific theory that derived from
observations showing that larger islands, and islands located closer to a mainland, supported higher
levels of species richness than did smaller, more isolated islands (Anderson and Jenkins 2006).
Scientists believed that these patches of habitat, which they coined “islands”, were surrounded by a
“sea” or a matrix, of inhospitable land. Based on this theory a ‘new’ patch would have more species
that migrated from the original unfragmented land potentially hosting more species than it could hold.
Also, in accordance to the smaller size and spatial relationship, the smaller ‘new’ patch would have
less population of individual species relative to the larger unfragmented landscape. These smaller

Fig 2: Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus) are another keystone species that are threatened.

Green Infrastructure 
populations would be more vulnerable to extinction and would eventually push the number of the
Fig 3: This is an
species to a new lower equilibrium. Scientist felt that corridors would be one way to partially counteract illustration of how
this higher extinction rate by reducing the physical barriers to promote immigration and help raise the a systems of hubs
general equilibrium. (patches, frag-
ments) can be linked
together using links
Metapopulation Theory is another conceptual framework important to the corridor concept. (corridors). This
Metapopulations - is a term for populations that are subdivided around separated habitat patches but Green Infrastructure
diagram includes
that interact with each other. This theory is a growing theory for conservation scientists especially in
sites that should be
cases where human activities have extensively fragmented a species range. This theory recognizes integrated within the
that movement of organisms among patches increases the stability of a regional population. links. The process of
Understanding that distributed regional populations can become limited to a series of shrinking learning by incor-
porating people is a
habitat patches which each would contain a smaller local population. These small populations then very strong tool in
become more vulnerable to extinction because it is easier for disasters such as fires, hurricanes, protecting and edu-
or deforestation can completely eliminate them. Therefore maintaining and providing a moderate cating our future.
movement corridor allows populations to interbreed between other local populations and immigrate to
fragments where species are declining or has become extinct. “By focusing on habitat configurations,
the metapopulation concept thus offered the possibility of explaining the species; population dynamics
and, ultimately, the factors that contribute to their persistence in a landscape” (Anderson and Jenkins
2006). However as much as this theory is invoked in literature there is little evidence supporting it. “The
extinction and colonization events that make a population an operating “metapopulation” are typically
very difficult to observe (Mann and Plummer 1995 in Anderson and Jenkins 2006). In conclusion the
metapopulation theory is appealing as a theoretical conservation technique, but it faces obstacles in its
application to conserve most species.

The third and more practical theory to explains the role of connecting fragmented landscapes is
found in the field of landscape ecology. Landscape ecology looks beyond species in order to focus on
entire landscapes and how their structure influences species and ecosystem processes (Anderson and
Jenkins 2006). It recognizes the landscape as an integral integrated system and that the understanding
of one piece cannot be truly understood unless you look at the holistic picture. Landscape Ecology
recognizes three basic structural elements; patches, fragments, or hubs, which are habitat types that
are embedded in the larger landscape matrix. Corridors, which connect original habitats and/or habitat
fragments, and the Matrix or landscape unit, which is the most widespread habitat in which each
other elements are embedded.
Fig 4: This illustration shows a corridor weaving through agriculture land and connecting
Movement within the matrix is a very important and a critical function in all of these theories. a patch
“Links (corridors) are critical to maintaining vital ecological processes and health of wildlife populations,
Natural Environments 

Five Cities & Pismo Lake Green Infrastructure Plan
they are the connections that tie the system together. Links and conservation corridors, such as rivers
and stream floodplains, serve as biological conduits for wildlife and may also provide opportunities for
outdoor recreation” (Benedict and Mcmahon 2006). Nonlinear features of the landscape can also be
utilized such as floodplains and marshlands but the true design and allocation of corridors should pertain
to the species and location.

According to Anderson and Jenkins, corridor design should be focused initially on linking
fragmented habitat patches, which may require building small-scale, linear corridors from scratch.
This may be utilized in areas with human activities that can preserve the recreational qualities while
still providing and preserving maximum habitat connectivity. However, on the large scale in intact
landscapes, the design should involve protecting and establishing connectivity at the landscape scale.
This may involve maintaining, conserving, and planning for wildlife across a developed landscape
(Anderson and Jenkins 2006). We see examples of this in the Y2Y (Yellowstone to Yukon) corridor
system where a series of large landscape corridors connected two large contiguous landscape elements.

Fig 5: The Emerald Necklace in Boston is an example of a ecologically linked area that served the public.
These small links can be considered Linear Corridors.
Therefore This framework gives us two corridor scales at which we can begin to design, combining
and distilling all of the corridor types, including; habitat corridors, ecological corridors, Movement,
dispersal, and wildlife corridors, and biological, biodiversity, and ecological corridors. The two types
include one at the smaller mostly fragmented scale in which we can call linear corridors. This would
facilitate movement to target species and accomplish a few specific objectives. The other could be
defined as landscape corridors as these larger conduits provide movement at the landscape scale and
maximize connectivity of habitats, ecosystems, and ecological processes (Conservation International
2000, in Anderson and Jenkins 2006). These landscape corridors can be made up of multiple linear
corridors each providing functions according to there own program.

Designing corridors is a very complex task. There is no magic formula or rubric to follow for
designing these integral systems, as there are many variables involved. Each corridor is special or
specific to the unique settings in which they are contained. They involve many components, including
species, habitats, ecosystems, and ecological processes (Friend 1991, Debinski and Holt 2000, in
Anderson and Jenkins 2006). When designing these processes it is better to preserve delicate sites of
prominent conservation value than to acquire more accessible but marginal habitat for corridors (Noss
1987, in Anderson and Jenkins 2006). The initial design of corridors should focus on protecting the
ecological system in a whole even if the primary objectives may be to focus on one species. However,
in cases where a focal species is being sought after, the design of the corridor should be intended to
serve the species characteristics while being conscious to the fact that this ecological component may,
and often do, serve more than just one species. Therefore knowledge of the species is a very important
Fig 6: This image of Lopez Lake in Arroyo Grande shows a area of immense biodiversity that can be con-
nected and further protected.

Green Infrastructure 
 Legend

and needed component as their life history traits may reveal information’s such as their ecological role Roads
Path Types

(e.g. predator versus prey), the feeding behavior, habitat requirements, space-use patterns, and social Bikes Prohibited Hwy
Highway

organization. The traits will help to determine whether the corridor designed will promote the animals Modified Bike Lane
Modified Bike Lane Hwy

finding, selecting, and traversing through the corridor. (Anderson and Jenkins 2006) The migration Recreational Route
Recreational Route Hwy

patterns such as migration timing, direction, and distance can influence the design of landscape
Road
Suggested Route

corridors.
Suggested Route Hwy
pismo_streams2
GREEN SPACES

ELEVATION

Corridor design usually involves three interrelated structural elements which include; width,
Value

High : 1360

connectivity, and habitat quality. “Most research on corridor design has been focused on width.” Low : 0

LANDSLIDE

The wider the corridor the more interior habitat it will contain and the more protection it will provide <all other values>
LANDSLIDE RISK

for species that are sensitive to edge effects or distribution from surrounding matrixes (Anderson and
High Potential
Low Potential

Jenkins 2006). Linear habitat design must be very conscious to this concept as these small strips may
Moderate Potential
Very High

simply add more edge effect to a already fragmented landscape, leading to continued loss of native
¯
Feet
0 3,050 6,100 12,200 18,300 24,400

biodiversity. However, in opposition to small corridors, the width of corridors may be too wide as in the
case of root voles (Microtus oeconmus) where studies shown that the animals would pause for grazing, Fig 7: GIS map indicating the quality of slopes.
thereby increasing their potential exposure to predation. (Soule and Gilpin 1991 in Anderson and
Jenkins 2006). For the most part scientist and practitioners generally agree that corridors designed for
large, highly mobile species that are vulnerable to human disturbance should be as wide as possible
(Anderson and Jenkins 2006). The width of the corridor is also dependent on the corridors length as
the length of a corridor usually results in the length that the animals will spend traversing it and utilizing
more of its valuable resources. Furthermore, corridor width is a very trivial task and reestablishes the
need to design corridors based on the case and subject.

The connectivity of corridors is based on three major factors; (I) the presence of alternative
pathways or networks, (II) the number and size of gaps in the corridor habitat, (III) and the existence of
larger habitat patches or nodes along the corridor (Anderson and Jenkins 2006). Gaps of low-quality
habitat may also lead to high mortality for less mobile species vulnerable to changes in micro climate.
In some cases continuous corridors may not be necessary or desired.

The habitat quality

Design for these corridors can be sought out in 4 steps; (I) Understanding the Broad Conservation
Goals and the Regional Context. (II) Identify specific corridor objectives and define general corridor
areas, (III) Select a candidate area and determine a tentative corridor configuration, (IV) Define
Fig 8: A very healthy, bio - diverse hub located within the thick Amazon.
strategic interventions

Natural Environments 

Five Cities & Pismo Lake Green Infrastructure Plan
For conservationists and regional landscape designers the veil is transparent. As we process
the site and the need to keep the biological web consistent it is necessary to gain support by agencies,
Fig 9: The San Joa-
quin Kit Fox (Vulpes municipalities, and individual stakeholders. However, this can sometimes be a tricky task especially
macrotis mutica) when facing individuals that don’t understand the perplexing vocab and complex structure of landscape
feeds on rodents and biology and their systematic characteristics. To gain interest many groups use a flagship species,
other small animals,
including black-tailed
charismatic in nature these help to push their goal. An example of this would be the Giant Panda used in
hares, desert cotton- various promotional occasions or the Polar Bears that are an icon for the ominous global situation. Using
tails, mice, kangaroo this methodology we choose species from our site that, both threatened and lovable, will help bring to
rats, squirrels, birds light the potential benefits for these vulnerable systems.
and lizards. Kit fox
do not need to drink
water since their prey
In our regional context the San Joaquin Kit Fox is the best candidate for flagship. Small, cuddly
provides enough liquid and cute this fox is also threatened and is a critical link in the regional bio-web. The promotional use of
for them to survive. this species does not mean that it is the primary species the we design for. However, we use this cuddly
Poison to kill rats and
fox to promote and sell our essential conservational ideas to the public. “Without sufficient stakeholder
mice is a threat to this
fox. Populations can buy-in, corridor implementation is much more likely to fail” (Anderson and Jenkins 2006). Therefore the
be maintained by sus- species or selling factor of this grand idea must be superb and appeal to the public. That is why you
taining food supplies do not notice many conservationists promoting the protection and growth for a small rodent, snake, or
such as the kangaroo
rat. spider although these species play just as much a critical role in the dynamic ecological web. However, it
shall be noted that when trying to remediate or replenish a species the focus of the corridor should be on
the species as noted previously.
Most of the time these flagship species are in a stage of extinction or are threatened. Most of
Fig 10: This family
of Kit Fox helps to the time the populous will not act unless it feels that something is in a case of severity. This impeding
show how this small and negligent form of action is inimical for biological systems as waiting until the system is unbalanced
cuddly fox is char- usually results in further loss of other species, Furthermore, pushing the need to protect these vulnerable
ismatic and apeals
to the population for systems before we damage them beyond conservation.
conservational tactics.
This species can be According to designcorridors.net the best way to prioritize corridors is to follow a rubric or some
considered a Keystone sort of grading system. They suggest separating design according to this grading system, which is
species in this case as divided into two factions. One being the threat and opportunity, which would be the potential that the
they are used to sell
the idea. connection can be at greater risk of being irreversibly lost if we do not conserve it immediately. This
would grade the current owners, the way the land is used, and threats such as highways, railroads, and
urban areas. The other design factor is the biological value of the linkage, which contains factors/
questions such as; if the linkage were lost, which species would become extinct? Which species
might live within the context of the design area? How much degradation would occur in the ecosystem
processes such as gene flow, recolonization after disturbance, and seasonal migration patterns.

Green Infrastructure 
Bibliography.
Books;
Anderson, Anthony, and Clinton N. Jenkins (Issues, Cases, and Methods in Biodiversity Conservation). Columbia: Columbia University Press,
2006. Print.

Benedict, Mark A., and Edward T. Mcmahon. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.
Print.

Carreiro, Margaret M. , Yong-Chang Song, and Jianguo Wu. Ecology, Planning, and Management of Urban Forests: International Perspective
(Springer Series on Environmental Management). New York: Springer, 2007. Print.

Mcharg, Ian L.. Design with Nature. Seattle: The Natural History Press, 1969. Print.

Web;
GIS Tools and Information for Designing Wildlife Corridors - Corridordesign.org. (n.d.). GIS Tools and Information for Designing Wildlife
Corridors - Corridordesign.org. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://corridordesign.org/

Roach, J. (n.d.). First Evidence That Wildlife Corridors Boost Biodiversity, Study Says. Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines | National
Geographic News. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060901-plant-corridors.html

University of California - Davis. “Designing Wildlife Corridors: Wildlife Need More Complex Travel Plans.” ScienceDaily 21 October 2008. 17
November 2009 <http://www.sciencedaily.com­/releases/2008/10/081020135221.htm>.

Pics;
Fig 1; Janet Wilson, “Charismatic Mega-Fauna”, retrieved Dec. 2, 2009, http://ijjfellows.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/janet-wilson-charismatic-
mega-fauna/

Fig 2; Walpapers free, “Baby Polar Bear”, retrieved Dec. 2, 2009, http://wallpapers.free-review.net/15__Baby_Polar_Bear.htm

Fig 3; Central midlands, “No Title”, retrieved Dec. 2, 2009, http://www.centralmidlands.org/greeninfrastructure.asp

Fig 4; NRCS, “No Title”, retrieved Dec. 2, 2009, http://www.ia.nrcs.usda.gov/news/brochures/ReptilesAmphibians.html

Fig 5; Emerald necklace. “Emerald Necklace System Map”, retrieved Dec. 3, 2009, http://www.emeraldnecklace.org/the-necklace/

Fig 6; google, “Lopez Lake”, retrieved Dec. 3, 2009, google earth

Fig 7; archgis personal custom map

Fig 8; amazing wierd world, “No Title”, retrieved Dec. 3, 2009, http://amazing-n-weirdworld.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html

Fig 9; Grambo (1995), “Photo of the San Joaquin kit fox”, retrieved Dec. 3, 2009, http://bss.sfsu.edu/holzman/courses/Fall00Projects/kfox.html

Fig 10; Fish and Wildlife service, “San Joaquin Kit Fox”, retrieved Dec. 3, 2009, http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/
img_display.php?pic=ig26_sanjoaquin_kit_fox_02.jpg&title=San%20Joaquin%20Kit%20Fox&cap=First+listed+on+March+11%2C+1967.+Range
%3A+California.+Click+to+enlarge.