Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T21:54:55.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Conserving species in a working landscape: land use with biological and economic objectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

Steve Polasky
Affiliation:
Fesler-Lampert Professor of Ecological & Environmental Economics Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, USA
Erik Nelson
Affiliation:
PhD Candidate Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, USA
Eric Lonsdorf
Affiliation:
Research Associate Lincoln Park Zoo, Alexander Center for Applied Population Biology, Chicago, USA
Paul Fackler
Affiliation:
Associate Professor Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University
Anthony Starfield
Affiliation:
Professor Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, USA
Andreas Kontoleon
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Unai Pascual
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Timothy Swanson
Affiliation:
University College London
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Loss of habitat is perhaps the single largest factor causing the decline of biodiversity (e.g. Wilson 1988; Wilcove et al. 2000). The widespread conversion of natural habitat to human-dominated land uses has left smaller and more isolated islands of natural habitat in a growing sea of agriculture, pasture, managed forests and urbanised areas. About half of the earth's useable land is devoted to pastoral or intensive agriculture (Tilman et al. 2001). Other lands are managed forests or are developed for housing or industrial use. In response, conservation biologists have called for the establishment of a system of formal protected areas to preserve key remnants of remaining natural habitat.

While formal protected areas play a vital role, many conservation biologists and ecologists recognise the need for conservation beyond the boundaries of protected areas (e.g. Franklin 1993; Hansen et al. 1993; Miller 1996; Reid 1996; Wear et al. 1996; Chapin III et al. 1998; Daily et al. 2001; Rosenzweig 2003). Nearly 90 per cent of land across the globe lies outside formal protected areas (IUCN categories I–VI, see WRI 2003), and protected status may arise on lands for reasons other than biodiversity conservation, such as aesthetics or low economic values (Pressey 1994; UNDP et al. 2000; Scott et al. 2001). For these reasons, the consequences of land use and land management decisions in working landscapes outside protected areas are vital.

Type
Chapter
Information
Biodiversity Economics
Principles, Methods and Applications
, pp. 501 - 530
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamus, P. R., Baker, J. P., White, D., Santelmann, M. and Haggerty, P. 2000. Terrestrial Vertebrate Species of the Willamette River Basin: Species-Habitat Relationships Matrix. Internal Report. US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. (This report and its accompanying appendices can be found in the zip file wrb.species.zip on the Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium's website, http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/ wrb/access.html)
Allen-Wardell, G., Bernhardt, P., Bitner, R., Burquez, A., Buchmann, S., Cane, J., Cox, P. A., Dalton, V., Feinsinger, P., Ingram, M., Inouye, D., Jones, C. E., Kennedy, K., Kevan, P., Koopowitz, H., Medellin, R., Medellin-Morales, S., Nabhan, G. P., Pavlik, B., Tepedino, V., Torchio, P. and Walker, S. 1998. The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology. 12. 8–17.Google Scholar
Ando, A., Camm, J. D., Polasky, S. and Solow, A. R. 1998. Species distributions, land values and efficient conservation. Science. 279. 2126–2128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baguette, M., Mennechez, G., Petit, S. and Schtickzelle, N. 2003. Effect of habitat fragmentation on dispersal in the butterfly. Proclossiana eunomia. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 326 (1). S200–S209.Google ScholarPubMed
Bowman, J., Jaeger, J. A. G. and Fahrig, L. 2002. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology. 83. 2049–2055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E. R. (ed.). 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forest of Western Oregon and Washington, Part 2. Gen. Tech. Rep.R6-F&WL-192–1985. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.
Cabeza, M. and Moilanen, A. 2003. Site-selection algorithms and habitat loss. Conservation Biology. 17. 1402–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calkin, D., Montgomery, C. A., Schumaker, N. H., Polasky, S., Arthur, J. L. and Nalle, D. J. 2002. Developing a production possibility set of wildlife species persistence and timber harvest value using simulated annealing. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 32. 1329–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. III, Sala, O. E., Burke, I. C., Grime, J. P., Hooper, D. U., Lauenroth, W. K., Lombard, A., Mooney, H. A., Mosier, A. R., Naeem, S., Pacala, S. W., Roy, J., Steffen, W. L. and Tilman, D. 1998. Ecosystem consequences of changing biodiversity. BioScience. 48. 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, R. L., Stoms, D. M. and Davis, F. W. 1996. Reserve selection as a maximal coverage problem. Biological Conservation. 76. 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, R., Pressey, R., Lombard, A., Desmet, P. and Ellis, A. 1999. From representation to persistence: requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich Mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa. Diversity and Distributions. 5. 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, D. J. 2003. Conservation of endangered species and the patterns and propensities of biodiversity. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 326 (1). S98–S103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curtis, R. O. 1992. A new look at an old question – Douglas fir culmination age. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 7. 97–99.Google Scholar
Curtis, R. O., Clendenen, G. W. and Demars, D. J. 1981. A new stand simulator for coast Douglas-fir: DFSIM user's guide. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-128. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
Daily, G. C. (ed.). 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Daily, G. C., Soderqvist, T., Aniyar, S., Arrow, K., Dasgupta, P., Ehrlich, P. R., Folke, C., Jansson, A., Jansson, B. O., Kautsky, N., Levin, S., Lubchenco, J., Maler, K. G., Simpson, D., Starrett, D., Tilman, D. and Walker, B. 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value. Science. 289. 395–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R. and Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A. 2001. Countryside biogeography: use of human dominated habitats by the avifauna of southern Costa Rica. Ecological Applications. 11. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faith, D. P. and Walker, P. A. 1996. Integrating conservation and development: effective trade-offs between biodiversity and cost in the selection of protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation. 5. 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fight, R. D., LeDoux, C. B. and Ortman, T. L. 1984. Logging costs for management planning for young-growth coast Douglas-fir. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-176. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
Franklin, J. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes?Ecological Applications. 3. 202–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, R. H. and Gustafson, E. J. 2004. Simulating dispersal of reintroduced species within heterogeneous landscapes. Ecological Modelling. 171. 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, B. J. and Fahrig, L. 2002. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity?Oikos. 99. 552–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, E. J. and Gardner, R. H. 1996. The effect of landscape heterogeneity on the probability of patch colonization. Ecology. 77. 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haight, R. G. 1995. Comparing extinction risk and economic cost in wildlife conservation planning. Ecological Applications. 5. 767–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, A. J., Garman, S. L., Marks, B. and Urban, D. L. 1993. An approach for managing vertebrate diversity across multiple-use landscapes. Ecological Applications. 3. 481–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanski, I. and Ovaskainen, O. 2000. The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature. 404. 755–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hof, J. and Bevers, M. 1998. Spatial Optimization for Managed Ecosystems. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, E. G. 2002. The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics. 78. 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G., Myers, W., Patil, G. and Walrath, D. 1998. Multiscale analysis of the spatial distribution of breeding bird species. In Bachmann, P., Kohl, M. and Paivinen, R. (eds.). Assessment of Biodiversity for Improved Forest Planning. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joly, P., Morand, C. and Cohas, A. 2003. Habitat fragmentation and amphibian conservation: building a tool for assessing landscape matrix connectivity. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 326 (1). S132–S139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
King, J. E. 1966. Site index curves for Douglas-fir in the Pacific Northwest. Weyerhaeuser Forestry Paper Number8. Weyerhaeuser Forestry Research Center. Canada.Google Scholar
King, A. W. and With, K. A. 2002. Dispersal success on spatially structured landscapes: when do spatial pattern and dispersal behavior really matter?Ecological Modelling. 147. 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latta, G. and Montgomery, C. A. 2004. Minimizing the cost of stand level management for older forest structure in western Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 19 (4). 221–231.Google Scholar
LeSage, J. 1999. Spatial Econometrics. http://www.spatial-econometrics.com/
Lichtenstein, M. E. and Montgomery, C. A. 2003. Biodiversity and timber in the Coast Range of Oregon: inside the production possibility frontier. Land Economics. 79. 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margules, C. R., Nicholls, A. O. and Pressey, R. L. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biodiversity. Biological Conservation. 43. 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, E., Homans, F. and Haight, R. 2000. Exploring strategies for improving the cost effectiveness of endangered species management. Land Economics. 76. 462–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. R. 1996. Conserving biodiversity in managed landscapes. In Szaro, R. C. and Johnston, D. W. (eds.). Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes: Theory and Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 425–441.Google Scholar
Moilanen, A. and Cabeza, M. 2002. Single-species dynamic site selection. Ecological Applications. 12. 913–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, C. A., Brown, G. M. Jr. and Adams, D. M.. 1994. The marginal cost of species preservation: the northern spotted owl. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 26. 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, C. A., Pollak, R. A., Freemark, K. and White, D. 1999. Pricing biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 38. 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nabhan, G. P. and Buchmann, S. L. 1997. Services provided by pollinators. In G. Daily (ed.). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Nalle, D. J., Montgomery, C. A., Arthur, J. L., Polasky, S. and Schumaker, N. H. 2004. Modeling joint production of wildlife and timber in forests. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 48. 997–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oregon Natural Heritage Program (ONHP). 2000. Integrated Willamette Basin Landcover ARCINFO coverage and related metadata (a very similar land cover ARCINFO coverage, LAND USE/LAND COVER ca. 1990 (ec90.e00), can be found at http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/ access.html).
Oregon State University Extension Service (OSUES). 2002. Oregon Agricultural Information Network. http://ludwig.arec.orst.edu/oain/SignIn.asp.
Oregon State University Extension Service (OSUES). 2003. Oregon Agricultural Information Network Enterprise Budget web site. http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/EconInfo/ent_budget/index.cfm
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD). 2001. Water Rights Data for the Willamette Valley: Point-of-Use ARCINFO coverage (willpou.e00) and related metadata. http://www.wrd.state.or.us/files/water_right_data/will/
Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium (PNW-ERC). 1999a. Soils – (SSURGO and STATSGO) ARCINFO Coverage (WRBSOILS.e00) and related metadata. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/access.html
Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium (PNW-ERC). 1999b. Topographic Slope ARCINFO Coverage (SLOPEPI.e00) and related metadata. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/access.html
Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium (PNW-ERC). 1999c. Vegetation – 1851 ARCINFO Coverage (VEG1851_v4.e00) and related metadata. http://www.fsl.orst.edu/pnwerc/wrb/access.html.
Polasky, S., Camm, J. D. and Garber-Yonts, B.. 2001. Selecting biological reserves cost-effectively: an application to terrestrial vertebrate conservation in Oregon. Land Economics. 77. 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressey, R. L. 1994. Ad-hoc reservations: forward or backward steps in developing representative reserve systems?Conservation Biology. 8. 662–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressey, R. L. and Logan, V. S. 1998. Size of selection units for future reserves and its influence on actual versus targeted representation of features: a case study in western New South Wales. Biological Conservation. 85. 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redford, K. H. and Richter, B. D. 1999. Conservation of biodiversity in a world of use. Conservation Biology. 13. 1246–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, W. V. 1996. Beyond protected areas: changing perceptions of ecological management objectives. In Szaro, R. C. and Johnston, D. W. (eds.). Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 442–453.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L. 2003. Win-Win Ecology: How the Earth's Species Can Survive in the Midst of Human Enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saetserdal, M., Line, J. M. and Birks, H. B. 1993. How to maximize biological diversity in nature reserve selection: vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous woodlands, Western Norway. Biological Conservation. 66. 131–138.Google Scholar
Schumaker, N. H., Ernst, T., White, D., Baker, J. and Haggerty, P. 2004. Protecting wildlife responses to alternative future landscape in Oregon's Willamette Basin. Ecological Applications. 14. 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. M., Davis, F. W., McGhie, R. G., Wright, R. G., Groves, C. and Estes, J. 2001. Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America's biological diversity?Ecological Applications. 11. 999–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoms, D. M. 1994. Scale dependence of species richness maps. Professional Geographer. 46. 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorsnes, P. 2002. The value of a suburban forest preserve: estimates from sales of vacant residential building lots. Land Economics. 78. 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D., Farigione, J., Wolff, B., D'Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W. H., Simberloff, D. and Swackhamer, D. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science. 292. 281–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyrvainen, L. and Miettinen, A. 2000. Property prices and urban forest amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 39. 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme, World Bank and World Resources Institute. 2000. World Resources 2000–2001. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2001a. National STATSGO (State Soil Geographic Database) Database. http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/stat_data.html.
United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2001b. National SSURGO (Soil Survey Geographic) Database. http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/ssur_data.html.
United States Department of Agriculture-National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2003. Oregon Soil Survey Reports and Data. http://www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/pnw_soil/or_data.html
Vos, C. C., Verboom, J., Opdam, P. F. M., Ter, Braak C. J. F. and , Possingham H. 2001. Toward ecologically scaled landscape indices. The American Naturalist. 157. 24–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Volser, C. A., Kerkvliet, J., Polasky, S. and Gaintutdinova, O. 2003. Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, OR. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 51. 261–277.Google Scholar
Warman, L. D., Sinclair, A. E. R., Scudder, G. G. E., Klinkenberg, B. and Pressey, R. L. 2004. Sensitivity of systematic reserve selection to decisions about scale, biological data, and targets: case study from southern British Columbia. Conservation Biology. 18. 655–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wear, D. N., Turner, M. G. and Flamm, R. O. 1996. Ecosystem management with multiple owners: landscape dynamics in a Southern Appalachian watershed. Ecological Applications. 6. 1173–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcove, D., Rothstein, D., Dubow, J., Phillips, A. and Losos, E. 2000. Leading threats to biodiversity: what's imperiling U.S. species. In Stein, B. A., Kutner, L. S. and Adams, J. S. (eds.). Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, P., and Araujo, M. 2000. Using probability of persistence to identify important areas for biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series B. 267. 1959–1966.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, E. O. (ed.). 1988. BioDiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
World Resources Institute (WRI). 2003. EarthTrends: The Environmental Information Portal. http://earthtrends.wri.org/
Yazvenko, S. B. and Rapport, D. J. 1996. A framework for assessing forest ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health. 2. 40–51.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×