Connectivity Analysis for the James River Heritage Trail

With limited funding for both recreation and conservation, linking these two goals can provide a rich return on investment. Using principles of green infrastructure (GI) networks, the authors devise an approach to trail design that would promote both ecosystem and human health. Spatial analysis tools were used to identify potential locations for the JRHT based on (1) existing protected areas, such as parks and wildlife refuges, (2) Virginia’s proposed statewide GI network (the Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment or VaNLA), and (3) a coarse GI network comprised of large, intact open space. Areas of high priority occurred where these three datasets overlapped on parcels of land close to the river’s banks (Figure 2 from article).

Considering all possible routes through the James River watershed, a connectivity analysis (Circuitscape) was conducted to identify potential pathways for the JRHT that efficiently flow through and between multiple locations of high natural resource value (Figure 6). At the basin scale, the analysis highlighted the challenge of connecting high value lands in the headwater region to high value lands in the coastal section of the watershed. The relative lack of green space in the Middle James created a series of bad routing options, resulting in a braided network of moderately connected paths. Preferred trail routing was more clear-cut in the Upper James, where several trails already exist within high value lands, and the Lower James, where the watershed’s narrower boundary and high development limits the possible options.

Unique trail planning recommendations emerged from the analysis for each of three physiographic provinces within the James River watershed. For example, new riparian trails could be viewed as restoration opportunities rather than conservation strategies in the agricultural and urban areas of the Piedmont region (e.g., Richmond City Green Infrastructure Assessment, Richmond Riverfront Plan). However, the detailed location of trails ultimately needs to incorporate many additional considerations related to other recreational goals, priorities, and logistical constraints.

The analysis concludes with the recommendation for continued, intensive boots-on-the-ground planning with local stakeholders. Dividing the basin into smaller fifth- and sixth-order watersheds pinpointed areas of high local variability in connectivity that require further study to assess the best positioning of trails given the fine-scale environmental variability and additional recreational and logistical concerns that must be considered in the final implementation (Figure 5b). These sites could be reanalyzed at much finer scale to consider factors such as trail intent, user perceptions, land ownership, and physical characteristics not evident at the basin-level. The methods provided in the paper can save time and money by prioritizing a few options for further study. The overall approach of coupling conservation and recreation goals through the creation of multi-purpose trail networks presents a cost effective and efficient planning strategy for the watershed.

Download the scientific paper below.

Reference: Courtenay, C.I., & T.R. Lookingbill. 2014. Designing a regional trail network of high conservation value using principles of green infrastructure. Southeastern Geographer 54:270-290 doi:10.1353/sgo.2014.0023