Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Assessment of Land Conservation Patterns in Maine Based on Spatial Analysis of Ecological and Socioeconomic Indicators

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Given the nature of modern conservation acquisitions, which often result from gifts and opportunistic purchases of full or partial property rights, there is a risk that the resulting mosaic of conserved resources may not represent a coherent set of public values and benefits. With different public and private entities engaged in land conservation, one would further expect that each organization would apply separate goals and criteria to the selection and acquisition of its conservation portfolio. This set of circumstances raises an important question: what is the aggregate outcome of this land conservation process? Retrospective assessments provide a means of reviewing cumulative historical decisions and elucidating lessons for improving future conservation strategies. This study used GIS-based spatial analysis to examine the relationships of private and public conservation lands in Maine to a variety of landscape metrics in order to determine the degree to which these lands represent core ecological and socioeconomic values that are meaningful to a wide cross-section of citizens. Results revealed that the gains of past conservation efforts in Maine are counter-balanced to some extent by apparent gaps in the existing fabric of conservation holdings. Conservation lands capture a representative sample of diverse habitat, provide a large measure of protection for multiple conservation values and indicators, and offer an unusual mix of outdoor recreational opportunities for residents and visitors alike. Yet, the majority of parcels are relatively small and isolated, and thus do not provide contiguous habitat blocks that offset ongoing processes of landscape fragmentation. Furthermore, the majority of area associated with many of the ecological metrics examined in this report is located outside the boundaries of current conservation holdings. The under-represented metrics identified in this investigation can be viewed as potential targets for new strategic conservation initiatives.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

MDIFW:

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

MNAP:

Maine Natural Areas Program

ME DOT:

Maine Department of Transportation

ME SPO:

Maine State Planning Office

US FWS:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

References

  • Baker JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, White D, Van Sickle J, Berger PA, Dole D, Schumaker NH (2004) Alternative futures for the Willamette River Basin, Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:313–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barringer R, Coxe H, Kartez J, Reilly C, Rubin J (2004) The Land for Maine’s Future Program: increasing the return on a sound public investment. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME

    Google Scholar 

  • Bley J (2007) LURC’s challenge: managing growth in Maine’s unorganized territories. Maine Policy Review 16:92–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs NA, Freeman R, LaRochelle S, Theriault H, Lilieholm RJ, Cronan C (2008) Modeling riverbank stability and potential risk to development in the Penobscot River estuary of Maine, USA. In: Seventh international conference on environmental problems in coastal regions, Wessex Institute Online Library

  • Brookings Institution (2006) Charting Maine’s future: an action plan for promoting sustainable prosperity and quality places. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 144 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch G, Lilieholm RJ, Toth RE, Edwards TC (2005) Alternative future growth scenarios for Utah’s Wasatch Front: assessing the impacts of development on the loss of prime agricultural lands. Ecology and the Environment 81:247–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz RW, Czech B (2005) Conservation deficits for the continental United States: an ecosystem Gap analysis. Conservation Biology 19:1478–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100:65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairfax SK, Gwin L, King MA, Raymond L, Watt LA (2005) Buying nature: the limits of land acquisition as a conservation strategy, 1780–2004. The MIT Press, Cambridge, 357 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Freyfogle ET (2003) The land we share: private property and the common good. Island Press, Washington, DC, 336 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginn WJ (2005) Investing in nature: case studies of land conservation in collaboration with business. Island Press, Washington, DC, 209 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Governor’s Council on Maine’s Quality of Place (2007) People, place, and prosperity: 1st report of the Governor’s Council on Maine’s Quality of Place. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, 29 pp

  • Hagan JM, Irland LC, Whitman AA (2005) Changing timberland ownership in the Northern Forest and implications for biodiversity. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences Report #MCCS-FCP-2005-1. Topsham, ME, 25 pp

  • Haines AM, Leu M, Svancara LK, Scott JM, Reese KP (2008) A theoretical approach to using human footprint data to assess landscape level conservation efforts. Conservation Letters 1:165–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter LM, Gonzalez MJ, Stevenson M, Karish KS, Toth R, Edwards TC, Lilieholm RJ, Cablk M (2003) Population and land use change in the California Mojave: natural habitat implications of alternative futures. Population Research and Policy Review 22:373–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings MD (2000) Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results. Landscape Ecology 15:5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krohn WB, Boone RB, Sader SA, Hepinstall JA, Schaefer SM, Painton SL (1998) Maine Gap Analysis—a geographic analysis of biodiversity. Final Report to USGS, Biological Resources Division, Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID

  • Lathrop RG, Bognar JA (1998) Applying GIS and landscape ecological principles to evaluate land conservation alternatives. Landscape Urban Planning 41:27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilieholm RJ (2007) Forging a common vision for Maine’s North Woods. Maine Policy Review 16:12–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilieholm RJ, Romm JM (1992) The Pinelands National Reserve: an intergovernmental approach to nature preservation. Environmental Management 16(3):335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maine State Planning Office (1983) Natural old-growth forest stands in Maine. Planning Report 77. Augusta, ME

  • McLaughlin NA (2005) Rethinking the perpetual nature of conservation easements. Harvard Environmental Law Review 29:421–521

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin NA (2006) Amending perpetual conservation easements: a case study of the Myrtle Grove controversy. University of Richmond Law Review 40:1031–1097

    Google Scholar 

  • MDIFW (2005) Maine’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta

    Google Scholar 

  • NEFA (2007) The economic importance and wood flows from Maine’s forests, 2007. Northeast Foresters Association, Concord, 8 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • New England Governors Conference, Inc. (2009) Report of the blue ribbon commission on land conservation. New England Governors Conference, Inc, Boston, 46 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Taffs KH (2001) Sampling of land types by protected areas: three measures of effectiveness applied to western New South Wales. Biological Conservation 101:105–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Cowling RM, Fishpool LDC, da Fonseca GAB, Gaston KJ, Hoffman M, Long JS, Marquet PA, Pilgrim JD, Pressey RL, Schipper J, Sechrest W, Stuart SN, Underhill LG, Waller RW, Watts MEJ, Yan X (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428:640–643

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sader SA, Legaard KR (2008) Inclusion of forest harvest legacies, forest type, and regeneration spatial patterns in updated forest maps: a comparison of mapping results. Forest Ecology and Management 255:3846–3856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52:891–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Csuti B, Jacobi JD, Estes JE (1987) Species richness: a geographic approach to protecting future biological diversity. BioScience 37:782–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Davis FW, McGhie RG, Wright RG, Groves C, Estes J (2001) Nature reserves: do they capture the full range of America’s biological diversity? Ecological Applications 11:999–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehman SV, Wickham JD, Smith JH, Yang L (2003) Thematic accuracy of the 1992 National Land-Cover Data for the eastern United States: statistical methodology and regional results. Remote Sensing of Environment 86:500–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein SM, McRoberts RE, Alig RJ, Nelson MD, Theobald DM, Eley M, Dechter M, Carr M (2005) Forests on the edge: housing development on America’s private forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-636, 16 pp

  • Stein SM, Alig RJ, White EM, Comas SJ, Carr M, Eley M, Elverum K, O’Donnell M, Theobald DM, Cordell K, Haber J, Beauvais TW (2007) National Forests on the edge: development pressures on America’s National Forests and Grasslands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-GTR-782, 26 pp

  • Tear TH, Kareiva P, Angermeier PL, Comer P, Czech B, Kautz R, Landon L, Mehlman D, Murphey K, Ruckelshous M, Scott JM, Wilhere G (2005) How much is enough? The recurrent problem of setting measurable objectives in conservation. BioScience 55:835–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas MR (2003) The use of ecologically based screening criteria in a community—sponsored open space preservation program. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46:691–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNC (2006) Conservation by design—a strategic framework for mission success. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) Revised critical habitat designated for Canada lynx. Federal Register 74(38):8667

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This investigation was supported by funding from the Senator George J. Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research at the University of Maine, the Sustainability Solutions Initiative (National Science Foundation Grant EPS-0904155), and the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. We greatly appreciate the kind and generous assistance of Daniel Coker at the Maine Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, Janet Parker at the Maine State Planning Office, and Bethany Atkins at BWH in providing data for this assessment. We also thank Professors William Krohn and Steven Sader at the University of Maine for their thoughtful and constructive internal reviews, and four external reviewers for their perceptive insights and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biology and Ecology, University of Maine, 5722 Deering Hall, Orono, ME, 04469-5722, USA

    Christopher S. Cronan

  2. School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, 5755 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME, 04469-5755, USA

    Robert J. Lilieholm & Jill Tremblay

  3. Maine State Planning Office, Land for Maine’s Future Program, 38 State House Station, Augusta, ME, 04330-0038, USA

    Timothy Glidden

Authors
  1. Christopher S. Cronan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert J. Lilieholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jill Tremblay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy Glidden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher S. Cronan.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Names, Sources, and Contents of Digital Maps Used in this Spatial Analysis

LYNX 2009 US FWS

Critical habitat designated for Canada lynx in Maine as obtained from US FWS; the mapped area contains features essential for conservation of lynx and has recent verified records of lynx occurrence and reproduction. Some lynx habitat was excluded from this designation as a result of either being tribal lands or private lands enrolled in the Maine Healthy Forest Reserve Program that promotes active lynx habitat conservation.

OLDGROWTH 2009 New Map by Authors

Listed and recommended hardwood and conifer old-growth forest stands based on points reported by ME SPO (1983); point data were transferred to a USGS topographic map at a scale of 1:125,000 and the estimated map coordinates were then entered into a digital Arc Map data base.

 

Appendix 2 Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the high and highest priority categories as identified in Maine’s Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy (2005)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cronan, C.S., Lilieholm, R.J., Tremblay, J. et al. An Assessment of Land Conservation Patterns in Maine Based on Spatial Analysis of Ecological and Socioeconomic Indicators. Environmental Management 45, 1076–1095 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9481-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9481-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation