Methodology — Identify, refine and validate

The data were compiled and analyzed using both visual (qualitative) and analytical (quantitative) assessments. The aim was to identify broad areas where ecological corridors would have the biggest positive impact to sustain connectivity, biodiversity and ecological functions into the future.

Qualitative assessment

This assessment was a coarse-scale mapping exercise. It involved stacking multiple data layers from each of the prioritization categories in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment. These ‘map stacks’ were visually assessed to identify areas containing priorities from all 3 data categories. Areas at a higher risk for habitat fragmentation or loss, showing high probability for wildlife movement, containing protected and unprotected natural habitats and multiple ecological values were flagged as candidate NPAECs.

Using these methods, the qualitative assessment identified numerous candidate priority areas across the country.

Once the candidate NPAECs were identified, each was further assessed and refined. This step ensured that candidate areas identified in the previous step were aligned with connectivity conservation goals and that methods were applied consistently across the country. Each candidate site was evaluated against the NPAEC criteria:

• in the mid and southern latitudes of Canada
• representative of each ecozone
• connects protected areas and/or unprotected natural habitats
• contains areas predicted to be important for wildlife movement
• contains areas with species at risk and high biodiversity values
• contains areas under imminent or continuous threat with a level of urgency for immediate or near-term actions
• contains areas vulnerable to climate change and/or containing options for climate-smart action
• contain areas that highlight the importance of transboundary cooperation to achieve optimal results
• includes opportunities for both ‘proactive’ (protection/conservation of lands with high connectivity) and ‘reactive’ (restoration of sites with degraded connectivity) approaches

Each of the proposed candidate NPAECs were evaluated and refined multiple times. Experts in connectivity science collaborated in the analyses and validation steps. Feedback from the public was also included in this process.

Quantitative validation

While the qualitative analyses were rigorous, human error and bias are always possible. Quantitative analyses to validate results were performed using statistical prioritization methods. Variation in the results of all model outputs, both qualitative and quantitative, was expected given the different analytical tools. However, overall agreement in the location of NPAECs between quantitative and qualitative analyses was evident, confirming the validity of the methods.