Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Appreciation, Use, and Management of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in California’s Working Landscapes

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

“Working landscapes” is the concept of fostering effective ecosystem stewardship and conservation through active human presence and management and integrating livestock, crop, and timber production with the provision of a broad range of ecosystem services at the landscape scale. Based on a statewide survey of private landowners of “working” forests and rangelands in California, we investigated whether owners who are engaged in commercial livestock or timber production appreciate and manage biodiversity and ecosystem services on their land in different ways than purely residential owners. Both specific uses and management practices, as well as underlying attitudes and motivations toward biodiversity and ecosystem services, were assessed. Correlation analysis showed one bundle of ecosystem goods and services (e.g., livestock, timber, crops, and housing) that is supported by some landowners at the community level. Another closely correlated bundle of biodiversity and ecosystem services includes recreation, hunting/fishing, wildlife habitat, and fire prevention. Producers were more likely to ally with the first bundle and residential owners with the second. The survey further confirmed that cultural ecosystem services and quality-of-life aspects are among the primary amenities that motivate forest and rangeland ownership regardless of ownership type. To live near natural beauty was the most important motive for both landowner groups. Producers were much more active in management for habitat improvement and other environmental goals than residential owners. As the number of production-oriented owners decreases, developing strategies for encouraging environment-positive management by all types of landowners is crucial.

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

References

  • Agbenyega O, Burgess PJ, Cook M, Morris J (2009) Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 26:551–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anella A, Wright J (2004) Saving the ranch: conservation easement design in the American West. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai Y, Zhuang CW, Ouyang ZY, Zheng H, Jiang B (2011) Spatial characteristics between biodiversity and ecosystem services in a human-dominated watershed. Ecological Complexity 8:177–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry SJ (2011) Current findings on grazing impacts of California’s special status species. Santa Clara Cooperative Extension Newsletter Keeping Landscapes Working 7(1):2–6. http://cesantaclara.ucdavis.edu/news_719/Keeping_Landscapes_Working/?newsitem=33238. Accessed 24 April 2012

  • Bartlett ET, Taylor RG, McKean JR, Hof JG (1989) Motivation of Colorado ranchers with federal grazing allotments. Journal of Range Management 42:454–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bean MJ (1998) The endangered species act and private land: four lessons learned from the past quarter century. Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis 28:10701–10710

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394–1404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunson MW, Huntsinger L (2008) Ranching as a conservation strategy: can old ranchers save the new West? Rangeland Ecology & Management 61:137–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California (2010) California’s forests and rangelands: An assessment. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire), Sacramento. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/assessment2010.html. Accessed 24 April 2012

  • Campos P, Oviedo JL, Caparros A, Huntsinger L, Coelho I (2009) Contingent valuation of woodland-owner private amenities in Spain, Portugal, and California. Rangeland Ecology & Management 62:240–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Plos Biology 4:2138–2152

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin-Kramer R, Tuxen-Bettman K, Kremen C (2011) Value of wildland habitat for supplying pollination services to Californian agriculture. Rangelands 33:33–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clendenning G, Field DR, Jensen D (2004) A survey of seasonal and permanent landowners in Wisconsin’s Northwoods: following Dillman and then some. Society and Natural Resources 17:431–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation 141:350–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferranto S, Huntsinger L, Stewart W, Getz C, Nakamura G, Kelly M (2012) Consider the source: the impact of media and authority in outreach to private forest and rangeland owners. Journal of Environmental Management 97:131–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa EB, Aronson J (2006) New linkages for protected areas: making them worth conserving and restoring. Journal for Nature Conservation 14:225–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB, Manning AD (2006) Biodiversity, ecosystem function, and resilience: ten guiding principles for commodity production landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer J, Brosi B, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Goldman R, Goldstein J et al (2008) Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:382–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischner TL (1994) Ecological costs of livestock grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology 8:629–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gentner BJ, Tanaka JA (2002) Classifying federal public land grazing permittees. Journal of Range Management 55:2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, de Groot R, Lomas PL, Montes C (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69:1209–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosnell H, Haggerty JH, Travis WR (2006) Ranchland ownership change in the greater yellowstone ecosystem, 1990–2001: implications for conservation. Society & Natural Resources 19:743–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2009) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. BES ecological reviews series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 110–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen AJ, Rasker R, Maxwell B, Rotella JJ, Johnson JD, Parmenter AW et al (2002) Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the New West. Bioscience 52:151–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havstad KM, Peters DPC, Skaggs R, Brown J, Bestelmeyer B, Fredrickson E et al (2007) Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecological Economics 64:261–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilty J, Merenlender AM (2003) Studying biodiversity on private lands. Conservation Biology 17:132–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs NT, Galvin KA, Stokes CJ, Lackett JM, Ash AJ, Boone RB et al (2008) Fragmentation of rangelands: implications for humans, animals, and landscapes. Global Environmental Change Human and Policy Dimensions 18:776–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Hopkinson P (1996) Sustaining rangeland landscapes: a social and ecological process. Journal of Range Management 49:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Sayre NF (2007) The working landscapes special issue. Rangelands 29:3–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Bartolome JW, D’Antonio CM (2007) Grazing management of California grasslands. In: Corbin J, Stromberg M, D’Antonio CM (eds) Ecology and management of California grasslands. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 233–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntsinger L, Johnson M, Stafford M, Fried J (2010) Hardwood rangeland landowners in California from 1985 to 2004: production, ecosystem services, and permanence. Rangeland Ecology & Management 63:324–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones RE, Fly JM, Talley J, Cordell HK (2003) Green migration into rural America: the new frontier of environmentalism? Society & Natural Resources 16:221–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones-Walters L (2008) Biodiversity in multifunctional landscapes. Journal for Nature Conservation 16:117–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science 51:142–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, de Groot RS, Verburg PH, Heller I et al (2009) Assessing landscape functions with broad-scale environmental data: Insights gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environmental Management 44:1099–1120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL, Fay JP, Thorp RW (2004) The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecology Letters 7:1109–1119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroeger T, Casey F, Alvarez P, Cheatum M, Tavassol L (2010) An economic analysis of the benefits of habitat conservation on California rangelands. Conservation economics white paper. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC

  • Liffmann RH, Huntsinger L, Forero LC (2000) To ranch or not to ranch: home on the urban range? Journal of Range Management 53:362–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lugo E (2008) Ecosystem services, the millennium ecosystem assessment, and the conceptual difference between benefits provided by ecosystems and benefits provided by people. Journal of Land Use 23:243–261

    Google Scholar 

  • MA (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • MA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Maletta H (2007) Weighting. ttp://www.spsstools.net/Tutorials/WEIGHTING.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2012

  • Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17:2145–2151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da-Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Bieling C (2012) Resilience and the cultural landscape: understanding and managing change in human-shaped environments. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Prager K (2010) Local and regional partnerships in natural resource management: the challenge of bridging institutional levels. Environmental Management 46:711–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:5242–5247

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Riebsame WE, Robb J (1997) Atlas of the New West: portrait of a changing region. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J et al (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11:28

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos MJ, Thorne JH (2010) Comparing culture and ecology: conservation planning of oak woodlands in Mediterranean landscapes of Portugal and California. Environmental Conservation 37:155–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satoyama Initiative (2011) Advancing social-ecological production systems. http://satoyama-initiative.org. Accessed 24 April 2012

  • Schaich H, Bieling C, Plieninger T (2010) Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA 19:269–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:630–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumway JM, Otterstrom SM (2001) Spatial patterns of migration and income change in the mountain West: the dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties. Professional Geographer 53:492–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood EC, Viers JH, Klausmeyer KR, Cox RL, Shaw MR (2009) Threats and biodiversity in the Mediterranean biome. Diversity and Distributions 15:188–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker P (2006) How the West was one: American environmentalists, farmers, and ranchers learn to say ‘howdy partner’. Outlook on Agriculture 35:129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker P, Fortmann L (2003) Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural Geographies 10:469–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker PA, Marvin SJ, Fortmann LP (2003) Landscape changes in Nevada county reflect social and ecological transitions. California Agriculture 57:115–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5. Accessed 24 April 2012

  • Wossink A, Swinton SM (2007) Jointness in production and farmers’ willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64:297–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the University of California Cooperative Extension. Tobias Plieninger was supported through the Social-Ecological Research Program of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FKZ 01UU0904A). Three anonymous referees provided valuable feedback. We thank Bill Stewart, Sabrina Drill, Yana Valachovic, and Mike De Lasaux for their ongoing input on this survey and all of the landowners that participated in the survey. The survey complies with the current United States laws.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecosystem Services Research Group, Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jägerstrasse 22/23, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Tobias Plieninger

  2. Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 10099, Berlin, Germany

    Tobias Plieninger

  3. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, 130 Mulford Hall MC 3114, Berkeley, CA, 94720-3114, USA

    Shasta Ferranto, Lynn Huntsinger, Maggi Kelly & Christy Getz

Authors
  1. Tobias Plieninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shasta Ferranto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lynn Huntsinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maggi Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christy Getz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Plieninger.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 89 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plieninger, T., Ferranto, S., Huntsinger, L. et al. Appreciation, Use, and Management of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in California’s Working Landscapes. Environmental Management 50, 427–440 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9900-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9900-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation