Editorial
Moving Away from Paper Corridors in Southeast Asia Among biodiversity conservation solutions, corridors often receive much public and political support. Nonbiologists can easily connect with the concept (Van Der Windt & Swart 2008), and corridors have the potential to reach a middle ground between land development and biodiversity conservation. However, this political convenience can be taken too far, especially given that corridors need substantial research and planning to be successful. At best, a poorly implemented corridor is a waste of public funds; at worst, it is a consolation measure that legitimizes habitat destruction. Corridors may even accelerate the decline of rare native species by allowing invasive species to spread easily across the landscape (Beier et al. 2008). Recently, attention has been directed toward distilling the best practices in designing linkages (Beier et al. 2008; Lacher & Wilkerson 2013) to help practitioners maximize ecological connectivity while avoiding common pitfalls. In the human-dominated landscapes of Southeast Asia, corridors have been recommended as an important conservation measure to minimize the negative impacts of forest fragmentation on biodiversity (Sodhi et al. 2010). Several could reconnect fragmented forests over hundreds of kilometers, while others were planned to link urban green areas over more modest distances. An example of a corridor plan spanning a relatively large spatial scale is the Central Forest Spine (CFS) Master Plan for Ecological Linkages from Peninsular Malaysia. Developed by the federal government, this plan aims to restore ecological connectivity between 4 fragmented forest complexes via a network of 17 primary linkages or corridors across the peninsula (DTCP 2012). However, none of these corridors were designated based on biodiversity surveys and none have been afforded protected area status where forest conversion to other types of land use (e.g., agriculture) is strictly prohibited. In fact, all but 2 of the 17 corridors are bisected by roads, and many have become further fragmented by monoculture plantations and artificial reservoirs (Clements 2013). Although recent research on these 17 corridors reveals that they can be important habitats for threatened mammals (e.g., Kawanishi et al. 2011; Clements 2013), their potential to deliver long-term conservation impacts remains uncertain because there is no financial or legal framework in the CFS Master Plan to prevent future forest conversion and biodiversity loss. Furthermore, there is no mechanism to facilitate the implementation of these corridors that
encompasses land owned by state governments, which are not legally bound to comply with plans developed by the federal government. Corridors intended to connect fragmented areas at a relatively small spatial scale occur in the neighboring city–state of Singapore. In 1991 an ambitious “park connector network” was conceptualized as a 360-km network of urban greenways to be implemented in 20–30 years (Tan 2006). These greenways would, in theory, link parks and a few nature reserves for both wildlife and human recreational use. Over 200 km of park connectors have already been implemented (Poon 2013). To date, however, the ecological value of existing park connectors for wildlife movement remains doubtful because most are a few meters wide and consist of pedestrian or cycling trails with sparse trees and shrubs. Recently, Singapore completed a structural corridor project in the form of an Eco-Link, a wildlife bridge across a highway to link 2 nature reserves (Chong et al. 2010). In contrast to the park connector network, preand postconstruction biodiversity surveys were planned in conjunction with scientists; plantings were designed to mimic natural tropical forests; the shape, width, and other physical aspects were designed to maximize the chances of fulfilling ecological functions. Nevertheless, it remains an unreplicated experiment on wildlife connectivity for Singapore; postsurvey results and analyses are pending. It is encouraging that several corridors are in the pipeline in the region and that efforts are being made to work with scientists to use ecological information to guide planning prior to implementation. In 2 of the 17 corridors identified in the CFS Master Plan, structural corridors in the form of viaducts are being constructed to facilitate large mammal crossings. The design of these viaducts is based on biological data (e.g., Kawanishi et al. 2011; Darmaraj 2012). In Malaysian Borneo a wildlife corridor is being planned with biodiversity consultants to connect Kinabalu National Park to the Crocker Range Park (Tan 2011). Smaller corridors within the region that incorporate urban areas are also in various stages of development and could potentially benefit from careful planning and execution to maximize their biodiversity conservation potential. Ambitious designs have been proposed in Malaysia in the city of Kuala Lumpur (Sreetheran & Adnan 2009) and 889 Conservation Biology, Volume 28, No. 4, 889–891 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12313
Editorial
890
in Johor (KNB 2006), but it remains to be seen whether these corridors will be designed based on sound ecological principles. In Singapore, 4 small corridors were recently launched under its corridor initiative called the Nature Ways program (Lin 2013). These corridors run alongside the city state’s roads and footpaths and are substantially smaller versions of the Eco-Link’s dense plantings. A new 12.8km stretch of corridor is being planned to connect the nation’s 2 centrally located forested nature reserves to its largest western forest fragment (Tan 2014). Unfortunately, the current approach of planting Nature Ways appears to be simply extracting a list of bird- and butterflyfriendly plants from national flora and fauna checklists and then shortlisting those that can tolerate roadside conditions and are available from landscape contractors. If the aim is to create ecologically functional wildlife corridors, this approach may be insufficient (Lacher & Wilkerson 2013). Corridor designers should identify source and sink habitat patches, shortlist target species based on surveys of the sources and sinks, and then incorporate their ecological requirements in corridor designs. Planners could target species that are affected by fragmentation, that require conservation action, and that could benefit from improved connectivity (e.g., common birdwing [Troides helena cerberus] [A.J., unpublished data]). Planners could also analyze trajectories that would allow the lowest resistance to species movement in the landscape (Beier et al. 2008). Also, the Nature Ways program has contradictory aims. On the one hand, they are portrayed as ecological conduits between habitat patches; on the other hand, they are marketed as a means to bring wildlife from nature areas to urban areas for human appreciation (Khoo & Chia 2013). These are very different objectives that need different approaches to succeed; hence, we believe clear communication in corridor design, implementation, and outreach is necessary. Multimillion dollar biodiversity corridor projects are often planned to address the increasing fragmentation of natural areas in Southeast Asia. However, with insufficient attention to ecological imperatives, they may result in increasing cynicism about the sincerity of the objectives to safeguard local natural heritage. Ultimately, corridors planned by government agencies should involve substantial collaboration with professional ecologists at the pre- and postcorridor construction stages so that these initiatives are based on best practices and are planned in a manner that facilitates the collection of empirical data to improve planning and implementation. Most importantly, financial and legal frameworks should be in place to implement planned corridors, and sufficient resources should be allocated to manage corridors and to protect corridors from development pressure—this can only happen if there is sufficient political will. With these
Conservation Biology Volume 28, No. 4, 2014
measures, we can redress past missed opportunities that resulted in paper corridors and implement corridors that can truly benefit the region’s threatened biodiversity. ANUJ JAIN,∗ KWEK YAN CHONG,∗ MARCUS AIK HWEE CHUA,† and GOPALASAMY REUBEN CLEMENTS‡§∗∗ ∗ Department
of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 117543, Singapore, email [email protected] †Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, National University of Singapore, 117377, Singapore ‡Rimba, 4 Jalan 1/9D, 43650 Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia §Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science and School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia ∗∗ School of Geography, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, Semenyih 43500, Selangor, Malaysia
Literature Cited Beier, P., D. R. Majka, and W. D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836–851. Chong, K. Y., A. T. K. Yee, and C. K. Yeo. 2010. Biodiversity: linking Singapore’s fragmented habitats. Nature 465:289. Clements, G. R. 2013. The environmental and social impacts of roads in Southeast Asia. Ph.D. thesis. James Cook University, Cairns. Darmaraj, M. R. 2012. Conservation and ecology of tigers in a loggedprimary forest mosaic in Peninsular Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kent, Canterbury. DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). 2012. Central Forest Spine: Summary of Master Plan for Ecological Linkages. Department of Town and Country Planning and Department of Forestry, Putrajaya. Kawanishi, K., C. A. Yeap, E. John, M. Guman, and S. Sukor. 2011. Malaysia, a leading country for green infrastructure. Cat News 55: 38–40. Khoo, K., and C. Chia. 2013. Creating ways for nature to travel. My Green Space 17(2). Available from http://mygreenspace.nparks. gov.sg/creating-ways-for-nature-to-travel/ (accessed February 2014). KNB (Khazanah Nasional Berhad). 2006. Natural and Green Environment. Section B, Part 3: chapter 11, pages 1–14. Comprehensive Development Plan for South Johor Economic Region 2006–2025, Malaysia. Available from http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/ pdf/cdp/14._Chapter11_-_Natural_and_Green_Environment.pdf (accessed February 2014). Lacher, I., and M. L. Wilkerson. 2013. Wildlife connectivity approaches and best practices in U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans. Conservation Biology 28:13–21. Lin, M. 2013. Four new Nature Ways to link green spaces in Singapore. The Straits Times, 4 February 2013. Poon, H. Y. 2013. Park Connectors – living large in small spaces. Pages 32–37 in D. Naidu and P. Yeap, editors. Urban Solutions Issue 2. Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore. Available from http://www. clc.gov.sg/documents/UrbanSolutionsIssue2.pdf (accessed March 2014). Sodhi, N. S., L. P. Koh, R. Clements, T. C. Wanger, J. K. Hill, K. C. Hamer, Y. Clough, T. Tscharntke, M. R. C. Posa, and T. M. Lee. 2010. Conserving Southeast Asian forest biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biological Conservation 143:2375–2384. Sreetheran, M., and M. Adnan. 2009. Green network development of Kuala Lumpur City: from the perspective of Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan. Forum 7:38–41.
Editorial
Tan, W. K. 2006. A greenway network for Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning 76:45–66. Tan, C. L. 2011. Plans afoot to form green belt. The Star, 29 March. Tan, A. 2014. Singapore’s longest green belt linking nature reserves
891
in central, western parts ready by end 2014. The Straits Times, 16 February. Van Der Windt, H. J., and J. A. A. Swart. 2008. Ecological corridors, connecting science and politics: the case of the Green River in the Netherlands. Applied Ecology 45:124–132.
Conservation Biology Volume 28, No. 4, 2014
Moving Away from Paper Corridors in Southeast Asia Among biodiversity conservation solutions, corridors often receive much public and political support. Nonbiologists can easily connect with the concept (Van Der Windt & Swart 2008), and corridors have the potential to reach a middle ground between land development and biodiversity conservation. However, this political convenience can be taken too far, especially given that corridors need substantial research and planning to be successful. At best, a poorly implemented corridor is a waste of public funds; at worst, it is a consolation measure that legitimizes habitat destruction. Corridors may even accelerate the decline of rare native species by allowing invasive species to spread easily across the landscape (Beier et al. 2008). Recently, attention has been directed toward distilling the best practices in designing linkages (Beier et al. 2008; Lacher & Wilkerson 2013) to help practitioners maximize ecological connectivity while avoiding common pitfalls. In the human-dominated landscapes of Southeast Asia, corridors have been recommended as an important conservation measure to minimize the negative impacts of forest fragmentation on biodiversity (Sodhi et al. 2010). Several could reconnect fragmented forests over hundreds of kilometers, while others were planned to link urban green areas over more modest distances. An example of a corridor plan spanning a relatively large spatial scale is the Central Forest Spine (CFS) Master Plan for Ecological Linkages from Peninsular Malaysia. Developed by the federal government, this plan aims to restore ecological connectivity between 4 fragmented forest complexes via a network of 17 primary linkages or corridors across the peninsula (DTCP 2012). However, none of these corridors were designated based on biodiversity surveys and none have been afforded protected area status where forest conversion to other types of land use (e.g., agriculture) is strictly prohibited. In fact, all but 2 of the 17 corridors are bisected by roads, and many have become further fragmented by monoculture plantations and artificial reservoirs (Clements 2013). Although recent research on these 17 corridors reveals that they can be important habitats for threatened mammals (e.g., Kawanishi et al. 2011; Clements 2013), their potential to deliver long-term conservation impacts remains uncertain because there is no financial or legal framework in the CFS Master Plan to prevent future forest conversion and biodiversity loss. Furthermore, there is no mechanism to facilitate the implementation of these corridors that
encompasses land owned by state governments, which are not legally bound to comply with plans developed by the federal government. Corridors intended to connect fragmented areas at a relatively small spatial scale occur in the neighboring city–state of Singapore. In 1991 an ambitious “park connector network” was conceptualized as a 360-km network of urban greenways to be implemented in 20–30 years (Tan 2006). These greenways would, in theory, link parks and a few nature reserves for both wildlife and human recreational use. Over 200 km of park connectors have already been implemented (Poon 2013). To date, however, the ecological value of existing park connectors for wildlife movement remains doubtful because most are a few meters wide and consist of pedestrian or cycling trails with sparse trees and shrubs. Recently, Singapore completed a structural corridor project in the form of an Eco-Link, a wildlife bridge across a highway to link 2 nature reserves (Chong et al. 2010). In contrast to the park connector network, preand postconstruction biodiversity surveys were planned in conjunction with scientists; plantings were designed to mimic natural tropical forests; the shape, width, and other physical aspects were designed to maximize the chances of fulfilling ecological functions. Nevertheless, it remains an unreplicated experiment on wildlife connectivity for Singapore; postsurvey results and analyses are pending. It is encouraging that several corridors are in the pipeline in the region and that efforts are being made to work with scientists to use ecological information to guide planning prior to implementation. In 2 of the 17 corridors identified in the CFS Master Plan, structural corridors in the form of viaducts are being constructed to facilitate large mammal crossings. The design of these viaducts is based on biological data (e.g., Kawanishi et al. 2011; Darmaraj 2012). In Malaysian Borneo a wildlife corridor is being planned with biodiversity consultants to connect Kinabalu National Park to the Crocker Range Park (Tan 2011). Smaller corridors within the region that incorporate urban areas are also in various stages of development and could potentially benefit from careful planning and execution to maximize their biodiversity conservation potential. Ambitious designs have been proposed in Malaysia in the city of Kuala Lumpur (Sreetheran & Adnan 2009) and 889 Conservation Biology, Volume 28, No. 4, 889–891 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12313
Editorial
890
in Johor (KNB 2006), but it remains to be seen whether these corridors will be designed based on sound ecological principles. In Singapore, 4 small corridors were recently launched under its corridor initiative called the Nature Ways program (Lin 2013). These corridors run alongside the city state’s roads and footpaths and are substantially smaller versions of the Eco-Link’s dense plantings. A new 12.8km stretch of corridor is being planned to connect the nation’s 2 centrally located forested nature reserves to its largest western forest fragment (Tan 2014). Unfortunately, the current approach of planting Nature Ways appears to be simply extracting a list of bird- and butterflyfriendly plants from national flora and fauna checklists and then shortlisting those that can tolerate roadside conditions and are available from landscape contractors. If the aim is to create ecologically functional wildlife corridors, this approach may be insufficient (Lacher & Wilkerson 2013). Corridor designers should identify source and sink habitat patches, shortlist target species based on surveys of the sources and sinks, and then incorporate their ecological requirements in corridor designs. Planners could target species that are affected by fragmentation, that require conservation action, and that could benefit from improved connectivity (e.g., common birdwing [Troides helena cerberus] [A.J., unpublished data]). Planners could also analyze trajectories that would allow the lowest resistance to species movement in the landscape (Beier et al. 2008). Also, the Nature Ways program has contradictory aims. On the one hand, they are portrayed as ecological conduits between habitat patches; on the other hand, they are marketed as a means to bring wildlife from nature areas to urban areas for human appreciation (Khoo & Chia 2013). These are very different objectives that need different approaches to succeed; hence, we believe clear communication in corridor design, implementation, and outreach is necessary. Multimillion dollar biodiversity corridor projects are often planned to address the increasing fragmentation of natural areas in Southeast Asia. However, with insufficient attention to ecological imperatives, they may result in increasing cynicism about the sincerity of the objectives to safeguard local natural heritage. Ultimately, corridors planned by government agencies should involve substantial collaboration with professional ecologists at the pre- and postcorridor construction stages so that these initiatives are based on best practices and are planned in a manner that facilitates the collection of empirical data to improve planning and implementation. Most importantly, financial and legal frameworks should be in place to implement planned corridors, and sufficient resources should be allocated to manage corridors and to protect corridors from development pressure—this can only happen if there is sufficient political will. With these
Conservation Biology Volume 28, No. 4, 2014
measures, we can redress past missed opportunities that resulted in paper corridors and implement corridors that can truly benefit the region’s threatened biodiversity. ANUJ JAIN,∗ KWEK YAN CHONG,∗ MARCUS AIK HWEE CHUA,† and GOPALASAMY REUBEN CLEMENTS‡§∗∗ ∗ Department
of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 117543, Singapore, email [email protected] †Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, National University of Singapore, 117377, Singapore ‡Rimba, 4 Jalan 1/9D, 43650 Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia §Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science and School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland 4870, Australia ∗∗ School of Geography, University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus, Jalan Broga, Semenyih 43500, Selangor, Malaysia
Literature Cited Beier, P., D. R. Majka, and W. D. Spencer. 2008. Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conservation Biology 22:836–851. Chong, K. Y., A. T. K. Yee, and C. K. Yeo. 2010. Biodiversity: linking Singapore’s fragmented habitats. Nature 465:289. Clements, G. R. 2013. The environmental and social impacts of roads in Southeast Asia. Ph.D. thesis. James Cook University, Cairns. Darmaraj, M. R. 2012. Conservation and ecology of tigers in a loggedprimary forest mosaic in Peninsular Malaysia. Ph.D. thesis, University of Kent, Canterbury. DTCP (Department of Town and Country Planning). 2012. Central Forest Spine: Summary of Master Plan for Ecological Linkages. Department of Town and Country Planning and Department of Forestry, Putrajaya. Kawanishi, K., C. A. Yeap, E. John, M. Guman, and S. Sukor. 2011. Malaysia, a leading country for green infrastructure. Cat News 55: 38–40. Khoo, K., and C. Chia. 2013. Creating ways for nature to travel. My Green Space 17(2). Available from http://mygreenspace.nparks. gov.sg/creating-ways-for-nature-to-travel/ (accessed February 2014). KNB (Khazanah Nasional Berhad). 2006. Natural and Green Environment. Section B, Part 3: chapter 11, pages 1–14. Comprehensive Development Plan for South Johor Economic Region 2006–2025, Malaysia. Available from http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/ pdf/cdp/14._Chapter11_-_Natural_and_Green_Environment.pdf (accessed February 2014). Lacher, I., and M. L. Wilkerson. 2013. Wildlife connectivity approaches and best practices in U.S. State Wildlife Action Plans. Conservation Biology 28:13–21. Lin, M. 2013. Four new Nature Ways to link green spaces in Singapore. The Straits Times, 4 February 2013. Poon, H. Y. 2013. Park Connectors – living large in small spaces. Pages 32–37 in D. Naidu and P. Yeap, editors. Urban Solutions Issue 2. Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore. Available from http://www. clc.gov.sg/documents/UrbanSolutionsIssue2.pdf (accessed March 2014). Sodhi, N. S., L. P. Koh, R. Clements, T. C. Wanger, J. K. Hill, K. C. Hamer, Y. Clough, T. Tscharntke, M. R. C. Posa, and T. M. Lee. 2010. Conserving Southeast Asian forest biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biological Conservation 143:2375–2384. Sreetheran, M., and M. Adnan. 2009. Green network development of Kuala Lumpur City: from the perspective of Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan. Forum 7:38–41.
Editorial
Tan, W. K. 2006. A greenway network for Singapore. Landscape and Urban Planning 76:45–66. Tan, C. L. 2011. Plans afoot to form green belt. The Star, 29 March. Tan, A. 2014. Singapore’s longest green belt linking nature reserves
891
in central, western parts ready by end 2014. The Straits Times, 16 February. Van Der Windt, H. J., and J. A. A. Swart. 2008. Ecological corridors, connecting science and politics: the case of the Green River in the Netherlands. Applied Ecology 45:124–132.
Conservation Biology Volume 28, No. 4, 2014
