Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A scale dynamics approach to integrate landscape conservation within and across jurisdictional boundaries

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Public-private partnerships are needed to conserve landscapes, waterscapes, and seascapes. Landscape conservation design (LCD) translates shared objectives into spatial priorities to guide conservation efforts and foster collaboration among partners at the landscape level.

Objective

We examined LCD projects in the eastern United States to identify implementation and coordination challenges and propose solutions that facilitate integration across projects in instances when coordination and continuity of conservation efforts is paramount.

Methods

We apply a scale dynamics approach to LCD that identifies what conservation actions to take (goals scale), how to conduct those actions (implementation scale), and where to take those actions (spatial scale) to benefit species and ecosystems (ecological scale). Additional steps include identify who (jurisdiction scale) will take those actions and when (threats scale) those actions should be taken.

Results

We found that although LCD projects span ecological, spatial, temporal, and jurisdictional scales, focusing only on spatial or ecological scales resulted in poor integration among adjacent projects when few species or ecosystems were the target of more than one LCD project.

Conclusions

Variation in approach among LCD projects poses a challenge to project coordination and project integration with existing conservation planning efforts and products. This challenge exists within and across jurisdictional boundaries. The scale dynamics approach provides a trans-project basis for integration across multiple LCD projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information file.

References

  • Albert C, Aronson J, Fürst C, Opdam P (2014) Integrating ecosystem services in landscape planning: requirements, approaches, and impacts. Landsc Ecol 29:1277–1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlering M, Carlson D, Vacek S, Jacobi S, Hunt V, Stanton JC, Knutson MG, Lonsdorf E (2020) Cooperatively improving tallgrass prairie with adaptive management. Ecosphere 11:e03095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azzerad JM, Nilon CH (2006) An evaluation of agency conservation guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government. Landsc Urban Plann 77:255–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin RF, Trombulak SC, Leonard PB, Noss RF, Hilty JA, Possingham HP, Scarlett L, Anderson MG (2018) The future of landscape conservation. Bioscience 68:60–63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bartuszevige AM, Taylor K, Daniels A, Carter MF (2016) Landscape design: integrating ecological, social, and economic considerations into conservation planning. Wildl Soc Bull 40:411–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bixler RP, Johnson S, Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Reuling M, Curtin C, Romolini M, Grove JM (2016) Networks and landscapes: a framework for setting goals and evaluating performance at the large landscape scale. Front Ecol Environ 14:145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonnot TW, Jones-Farrand DT, Thompson FR III, Millspaugh JJ, Fitzgerald JA, Muenks N, Hanberry P, Stroh E, Heggemann L, Fowler A, Howery M, Hammond S, Evans K (2019) Developing a decision-support process for landscape conservation design. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-190. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, Newtown Square. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-190

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown M, Murtha T (2019) Anthropological approaches for cultural resource conservation design and planning. Environ Pract 21:179–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campellone RM, Chouinard KM, Fisichelli NA, Gallo JA, Lujan JR, McCormick RJ, Miewald TA, Murry BA, Pierce DJ, Shively DR (2018) The iCass platform: nine principles for landscape conservation design. Landsc Urban Plann 176:64–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc 11(2):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS, Hannahs N, Levine J, Norton B, Ruckelshaus M, Russell R, Tam J, Woodside U (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comer PJ, Hak JC, Kindscher K, Muldavin E, Singhurst J (2018) Continent-scale landscape conservation design for temperate grasslands of the Great Plains and Chihuahuan Desert. Nat Areas J 38:196–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conservation Measures Partnership (2013) Open standards for the practice of conservation, version 3.0. http://www.conservationmeasures.org. Accessed 31 May 2022

  • Evans NM, Carrozzino-Lyon AL, Galbraith B, Noordyk J, Peroff DM, Stoll J, Thompson A, Winden MW, Davis MA (2019) Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin. Ecosyst Serv 39:101001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C, Ostrom E, Ahn T-K (2000) The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. Ecol Econ 32:217–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (eds) (2012) Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves CR, Game ET (2016) Conservation planning: informed decisions for a healthier planet. Roberts and Company Publishers, Greenwood Village

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks RD, Baldwin RF, Leonard PB, Bee GB, Claflin P (2019) Interactive online tool for educating the public about landscape conservation. J Ext 57(2):2TOT5

    Google Scholar 

  • Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (2014) Network Strategic Plan https://lccnetwork.org/sites/default/files/Resources/LCC_Network_Strategic_Plan.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2022

  • Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network (2016) Characteristics of Landscape Conservation Design. https://lccnetwork.org/resource/lcc-network-landscape-conservation-design-characteristics. Accessed 31 May 2022

  • Leonard PB, Baldwin RF, Hanks RD (2017) Landscape-scale conservation design across biotic realms: sequential integration of aquatic and terrestrial landscapes. Sci Rep 7:14556

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Liberati MR, Rittenhouse CD, Vokoun JC (2016) Beyond protection: expanding “conservation opportunity” to redefine conservation planning in the 21st century. J Environ Manag 183:33–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loeb CD, D’Amato AW (2020) Large landscape conservation in a mixed ownership region: opportunities and barriers for putting the pieces together. Biol Conserv 243:108462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansourian S, Vallauri D (2014) Restoring forest landscapes: important lessons learnt. Environ Manag 53:241–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405:243–253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mascia MB, Pailler S, Thieme ML, Rowe A, Bottrill MC, Danielsen F, Geldmann J, Naidoo R, Pullin AS, Burgess ND (2014) Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. Biol Conserv 169:258–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore CT, Gannon JJ, Shaffer TL, Dixon CS (2020) An Adaptive approach to vegetation management in native prairies of the northern great plains. In: Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE, Smith DR (eds) Structured decision making: case studies in natural resource management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 246–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecol 23:633–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) A review of the landscape conservation cooperatives. The National Academies Press, Washington. https://doi.org/10.17226/21829

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Network for Landscape Conservation (2018) Pathways Forward: progress and priorities in landscape conservation. https://landscapeconservation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Pathways-Forward_2018_NLC.pdf. Accessed 30 Mar 2021

  • Ogletree SS, Powell RB, Baldwin RF, Leonard PB (2019) A framework for mapping cultural resources in landscape conservation planning. Conserv Sci Pract 1(6):e41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reece JS, Watson A, Soupy Daylander P, Kallio Edwards C, Geselbracht L, LaPeyre MK, Tirpak BE, Tirpak JM, Woodrey M (2018) A multiscale natural community and species-level assessment of the Gulf Coast, USA. PLoS ONE 13(6):e0199844

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Scarlett L, McKinney M (2016) Connecting people and places: the emerging role of network governance in large landscape conservation. Front Ecol Environ 14:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein BA (2007) Bridging the gap: incorporating science-based information into land use planning. In: Environmental Law Institute (ed) Lasting Landscapes: reflections on the role of conservation science in land use planning. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, pp 52–58

    Google Scholar 

  • The Nature Conservancy (2007) Conservation Action Planning Handbook: Developing Strategies, Taking Actions and Measuring Success at Any Scale. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • The Nature Conservancy (2016) Conservation by design 2.0, version 1.0. https://www.conservationgateway.org. Accessed 31 May 2022

  • Theobald DM, Hobbs NT, Bearly T, Zack JA, Shenk T, Riebsame WE (2000) Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecol 15:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargas JC, Flaxman M, Fradkin B (2014) Landscape Conservation and climate change scenarios for the state of Florida: a decision support system for strategic conservation. Summary for decision makers. GeoAdaptive LLC, Boston

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Coordinators, Science Coordinators, and staff of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives for providing information on landscape conservation design projects. Todd Jones-Farrand, Rua Mordecai, Scott Schwenk, Steve Traxler, and Gwen White were particularly generous with their time to ensure we captured their LCD efforts appropriately. Discussions with Marjorie (Mauri) Liberati, Jason Vokoun, and Tracy Rittenhouse led to improvements in the scale dynamics approach. We thank several anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions that improved this article. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This research was supported by funding provided by the Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network through a national grant opportunity offered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Funding

This research was supported by funding provided by the Landscape Conservation Cooperative Network through a national grant opportunity offered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation Center, University of Connecticut, 1376 Storrs Road Unit 4087, Storrs, CT, 06269-4087, USA

    Chadwick D. Rittenhouse

  2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lafayette, LA, 70506, USA

    John M. Tirpak

  3. U.S. Forest Service Northern Research Station, 202 Natural Resources Building, Columbia, MT, 65211-7260, USA

    Frank R. Thompson III

Authors
  1. Chadwick D. Rittenhouse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Tirpak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank R. Thompson III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by CDR. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CDR and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chadwick D. Rittenhouse.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2113.8 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rittenhouse, C.D., Tirpak, J.M. & Thompson, F.R. A scale dynamics approach to integrate landscape conservation within and across jurisdictional boundaries. Landsc Ecol 38, 725–736 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01456-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-022-01456-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation