Connectivity refers to the structural and functional ecological linkages between the protected area and surrounding habitats or ecosystems that enable key ecological processes such as species movement, gene flow, migration, larval dispersal, and climate adaptation.

Description

Connectivity sustains the long-term viability of the site’s major natural values and underpins processes such as biomass recovery and spillover.

Connectivity can be:

Structural: the physical continuity of habitats, corridors, stepping stones and currents.
Functional (the actual movement of species, gene flow and dispersal patterns);
Ecological (maintenance of trophic links and ecosystem processes across boundaries).

In marine systems, connectivity may include:

Adult migration routes
Current systems and larval dispersal networks
Habitat continuity (reefs, seagrass and mangroves).

In terrestrial systems:

Corridors
Buffer zones
Ecological networks
Transboundary linkages

Connectivity supports:

Ecological resilience
Spillover dynamics
The long-term viability of key conservation elements
Climate adaptation

How to assess connectivity in IMET

First, document the evidence
Before classifying connectivity, assess both:
- Structural connectivity: evidence of habitat continuity (e.g. corridors, stepping stones, buffer zones, marine currents or transboundary ecological networks).
- Functional connectivity: evidence that ecological processes occur across the landscape or seascape (e.g. species movement, migration, gene flow or larval dispersal).
Base your classification on the evidence, not your assumptions
After reviewing the available information, select the classification that best reflects the documented level of connectivity:
- No connectivity: the protected area is highly isolated.
- Limited connectivity: ecological links are weak or fragmented.
- Moderate connectivity: partial ecological continuity exists.
- Strong connectivity: the protected area is part of an integrated ecological network.
When evidence is limited, indicate the appropriate confidence level rather than assuming stronger connectivity.
Link connectivity to management planning
Assess whether connectivity is explicitly considered in management planning through measures such as corridor protection, buffer zone management, restoration actions or coordination with neighbouring protected areas.
Link connectivity to management effectiveness
The selected classification informs IMET analysis across:
- C1.5 – Ecosystem services (importance and prioritisation);
- I1 – Basic information;
- PR7 – Management of key values and threats (management actions);
- O/C2 – Ecological outcomes and/or O/C3 – Effects on local quality of life.

Request access