Environmental Management

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 427–440

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

  • Tobias Plieninger
  • Shasta Ferranto
  • Lynn Huntsinger
  • Maggi Kelly
  • Christy Getz


“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.


Biodiversity California Ecosystem services Forest and rangeland management Landowner survey Working landscapes 

Supplementary material

267_2012_9900_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (88 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 89 kb)


  1. Agbenyega O, Burgess PJ, Cook M, Morris J (2009) Application of an ecosystem function framework to perceptions of community woodlands. Land Use Policy 26:551–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anella A, Wright J (2004) Saving the ranch: conservation easement design in the American West. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  3. 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 8:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Bartlett ET, Taylor RG, McKean JR, Hof JG (1989) Motivation of Colorado ranchers with federal grazing allotments. Journal of Range Management 42:454–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bean MJ (1998) The endangered species act and private land: four lessons learned from the past quarter century. Environmental Law Reporter News and Analysis 28:10701–10710Google Scholar
  7. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunson MW, Huntsinger L (2008) Ranching as a conservation strategy: can old ranchers save the new West? Rangeland Ecology & Management 61:137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. 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 62:240–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC (2006) Conservation planning for ecosystem services. Plos Biology 4:2138–2152Google Scholar
  13. Chaplin-Kramer R, Tuxen-Bettman K, Kremen C (2011) Value of wildland habitat for supplying pollination services to Californian agriculture. Rangelands 33:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 17:431–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biological Conservation 141:350–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 97:131–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Figueroa EB, Aronson J (2006) New linkages for protected areas: making them worth conserving and restoring. Journal for Nature Conservation 14:225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 4:80–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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 6:382–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fleischner TL (1994) Ecological costs of livestock grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology 8:629–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gentner BJ, Tanaka JA (2002) Classifying federal public land grazing permittees. Journal of Range Management 55:2–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 69:1209–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gosnell H, Haggerty JH, Travis WR (2006) Ranchland ownership change in the greater yellowstone ecosystem, 1990–2001: implications for conservation. Society & Natural Resources 19:743–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 110–139Google Scholar
  28. 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 52:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 64:261–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hilty J, Merenlender AM (2003) Studying biodiversity on private lands. Conservation Biology 17:132–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 18:776–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huntsinger L, Hopkinson P (1996) Sustaining rangeland landscapes: a social and ecological process. Journal of Range Management 49:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huntsinger L, Sayre NF (2007) The working landscapes special issue. Rangelands 29:3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 233–253Google Scholar
  36. 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 63:324–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones RE, Fly JM, Talley J, Cordell HK (2003) Green migration into rural America: the new frontier of environmentalism? Society & Natural Resources 16:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jones-Walters L (2008) Biodiversity in multifunctional landscapes. Journal for Nature Conservation 16:117–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kendra A, Hull RB (2005) Motivations and behaviors of new forest owners in Virginia. Forest Science 51:142–154Google Scholar
  40. 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 44:1099–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 7:1109–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Liffmann RH, Huntsinger L, Forero LC (2000) To ranch or not to ranch: home on the urban range? Journal of Range Management 53:362–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 23:243–261Google Scholar
  45. MA (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. MA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Maletta H (2007) Weighting. ttp://www.spsstools.net/Tutorials/WEIGHTING.pdf. Accessed 24 April 2012
  48. Millar CI, Stephenson NL, Stephens SL (2007) Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17:2145–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da-Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:853–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plieninger T, Bieling C (2012) Resilience and the cultural landscape: understanding and managing change in human-shaped environments. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Prager K (2010) Local and regional partnerships in natural resource management: the challenge of bridging institutional levels. Environmental Management 46:711–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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 107:5242–5247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Riebsame WE, Robb J (1997) Atlas of the New West: portrait of a changing region. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 11:28Google Scholar
  55. Santos MJ, Thorne JH (2010) Comparing culture and ecology: conservation planning of oak woodlands in Mediterranean landscapes of Portugal and California. Environmental Conservation 37:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Satoyama Initiative (2011) Advancing social-ecological production systems. http://satoyama-initiative.org. Accessed 24 April 2012
  57. Schaich H, Bieling C, Plieninger T (2010) Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. GAIA 19:269–277Google Scholar
  58. 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 48:630–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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 53:492–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Underwood EC, Viers JH, Klausmeyer KR, Cox RL, Shaw MR (2009) Threats and biodiversity in the Mediterranean biome. Diversity and Distributions 15:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker P (2006) How the West was one: American environmentalists, farmers, and ranchers learn to say ‘howdy partner’. Outlook on Agriculture 35:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walker P, Fortmann L (2003) Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural Geographies 10:469–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Walker PA, Marvin SJ, Fortmann LP (2003) Landscape changes in Nevada county reflect social and ecological transitions. California Agriculture 57:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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
  65. Wossink A, Swinton SM (2007) Jointness in production and farmers’ willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64:297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Plieninger
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shasta Ferranto
    • 3
  • Lynn Huntsinger
    • 3
  • Maggi Kelly
    • 3
  • Christy Getz
    • 3
  1. 1.Ecosystem Services Research GroupBerlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and HumanitiesBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Geography DepartmentHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and ManagementUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations