As the extension 2.0 says, JECAMI 2.0 is an advancement of JECAMI 1.0. While the previous version concentrated on the suitability of ecological connectivity, JECAMI 2.0 implemented a new concept, the "Strategic Alpine Connectivity Areas (SACA) 1 - 3 to enhance the usability of specific measures.
We defined the following definitions of the 3 SACA types:
SACA1: Ecological conservation areas where ecological connectivity already works quite well (CSI ≥ 8). Ecological connectivity should be conserved in these areas. SACA2: Ecological Intervention areas that represent important links between SACA1 areas (ecological conservation areas). Connectivity is currently working to some extent but would benefit from enhancements. In these areas, improvement / restoration measurements are needed.
SACA3: Connectivity restoration areas represent important barriers between SACA1 areas (ecological conservation areas)
The definition of SACA types must be defined and accepted within the project group as well as by the observers of the project.
Create a simplification of ecological connectivity to improve the understanding of the effect of a measure was a useful task to act on the right place.
Collect and harmonize a bunch of spatial data to describe and map ecological connectivity from 6 independent states and numerous regions is probably the most challenging thing you can do in a GIS-project.
Describe precisely the data you need;
Find the right person to establish the contacts to the data provider;
Be able to handle manyfold data formats, structures and systems.
They think that refusing to disclose data means that open questions are not answered.
We organized expert workshops to build a common base of the understanding, what ecological connectivity means and how we define it on a landscape level in different sectors (e.g. agriculture, forestry, urban planning).
Only in a second step methods, procedures and data were defined and implemented.
An important factor for success was the ability to moderate between the individual representatives so that common solutions could be found.
The process to bring all project partners from different countries to a common understanding and acting takes longer than the (technical) implementation itself.
Once, the first step is done and fully accepted, the technical solution can be developed on a solid basis.
