Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Citizens of local jurisdictions enhance plant community preservation through ballot initiatives and voter-driven conservation efforts

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Open space areas protected by local communities may augment larger scale preservation efforts and may offer overlooked benefits to biodiversity conservation provided they are in suitable ecological condition. We examine protected areas established by local communities through ballot initiatives, a form of direct democracy, in California, USA. We compare ecological conditions of wooded habitats on local ballot protected sites and on sites protected by a state-level conservation agency. Collectively, we found few differences in ecological conditions on each protected area type. Ballot sites had greater invasive understory cover and larger trees. Community dissimilarity patterns suggested ballot sites protect a complementary set of tree species to those on state lands. Overall, geographic characteristics influenced onsite conditions more than details of how sites were protected. Thus, community-driven conservation efforts contribute to protected area networks by augmenting protection of some species while providing at least some protection to others that might otherwise be missed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbitt, R.J.F., J.M. Scott, and D.S. Wilcove. 2000. The geography of vulnerability: Incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planning. Biological Conservation 96: 169–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J.M. 2010. Wildlife Sanctuaries and the Audubon Society: Places to Hide and Seek. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ando, A.W., and P. Shah. 2010. Demand-side factors in optimal land conservation choice. Resource and Energy Economics 32: 203–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aycrigg, J.L., A. Davidson, L.K. Svancara, K.J. Gergely, A. McKerrow, and J.M. Scott. 2013. Representation of ecological systems within the protected areas network of the continental United States. PLoS ONE 8: e54689.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M.D., M.J. Lacki, G.A. Falxa, P.L. Droppelman, R.A. Slack, and S.A. Slankard. 2008. Habitat use of pallid bats in coniferous forests of northern California. Northwest Science 82: 269–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: Univirsity of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beidleman, L.H., and E.N. Kozloff. 2014. Plants of the San Francisco Bay Region: Mendocino to Monterey, Third Edition, 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104: 15188–15193.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, R.A., and F.J. Sijtsma. 2017. A portfolio of natural places: Using a participatory GIS tool to compare the appreciation and use of green spaces inside and outside urban areas by urban residents. Landscape and Urban Planning 158: 155–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bode, M., W. Probert, W.R. Turner, K.A. Wilson, and O. Venter. 2011. Conservation planning with multiple organizations and objectives. Conservation Biology 25: 295–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buijs, A.E., T.J.M. Mattijssen, A.P.N. Van der Jagt, B. Ambrose-Oji, J.-E. Andersson, B.H.M. Elands, and M.S. Møller. 2017. Active citizenship for urban green infrastructure: fostering the diversity and dynamics of citizen contributions through mosaic governance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 22: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. CA.GOV: California Department of Fish and Wildlife. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov. Accessed 23 March 2016.

  • California Native Plant Society Vegetation Committee (CNPSVC). 2007. California Native Plant Society Relevé Protocol, 1–18. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Call, D.R., R.J. Gutiérrez, and J. Verner. 1992. Foraging habitat and home-range characteristics of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 94: 880–888.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, L.M., and A. Vainio-Mattila. 2003. Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human Ecology 31: 417–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coetzee, B.W.T. 2017. Evaluating the ecological performance of protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 231–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, B.J., and J.W. White. 2011. Categorizing locally rare plant taxa for conservation status. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 451–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, B.J., J.W. White, and S.J. Steinberg. 2011. Geographic discrepancies between global and local rarity richness patterns and the implications for conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 3489–3500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, B.J., and J.W. White. 2013. A checklist and floristic summary of the vascular plants of Napa County, California. Phytotaxa 95: 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, B.J., A.M. Sánchez-Cuervo, J.W. White, and S. Steinberg. 2015. Conservation ecology of rare plants within complex local habitat networks. Oryx 49: 696–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, B.J., J.N. Sanchirico, K. Kroetz, A.E. Benefield, and P.R. Armsworth. 2020. Species protection in areas conserved through community-driven direct democracy as compared with a large private land trust in California. Environmental Conservation 47: 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892919000407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiTomaso, J.M., and E.A. Healy. 2007. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Berkeley, CA: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durán, A.P., R. Inger, L. Cantú-Salazar, and K.J. Gaston. 2016. Species richness representation within protected areas is associated with multiple interacting spatial features. Diversity and Distributions 22: 300–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J.D. 1996. Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gago, E.J., J. Roldan, R. Pacheco-Torres, and J. Ordóñez. 2013. The city and urban heat islands: a review of strategies to mitigate adverse effects. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 25: 749–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T.M. 2004. The Local Initiative in California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goslee, S.C., and D.L. Urban. 2007. The ecodist package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data. Journal of Statistical Software 22: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensher, D.A., and L.W. Johnson. 2018. Applied Discrete-Choice Modelling. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joppa, L.N., and A. Pfaff. 2009. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4: e8273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, W., E.S. Minor, C.-R. Park, and D. Lee. 2015. Effects of habitat structure, human disturbance, and habitat connectivity on urban forest bird communities. Urban ecosystems 18: 857–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, D.J., and M. Harms. 2010. Wildflowers of San Luis Obispo, California. San Luis Obispo, CA: City of San Luis Obispo and California Native Plant Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kothari, A. 2006a. Community conserved areas: towards ecological and livelihood security. Parks: The International Journal for Protected Area Managers 16: 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kothari, A. 2006b. Community Conserved Areas, Editorial. Parks: The International Journal for Protected Area Managers 16: 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraaij, T., J.A. Baard, and B.J. Crain. 2017. Conservation status and management insights from tracking a cryptic and Critically Endangered species of Orchidaceae. Oryx 51: 441–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroetz, K., J.N. Sanchirico, P.R. Armsworth, and H. Spencer Banzhaf. 2014. Benefits of the ballot box for species conservation. Ecology Letters 17: 294–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichstein, J.W. 2007. Multiple regression on distance matrices: a multivariate spatial analysis tool. Plant Ecology 188: 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marin County Parks (MCP). 2020. Parks and Preserves: Old Saint Hilary’s Preserve. https://www.marincountyparks.org/parkspreserves/preserves/old-saint-hilarys?tabnum=4. Accessed October 12 2020.

  • Martín-López, B., C. Montes, L. Ramírez, and J. Benayas. 2009. What drives policy decision-making related to species conservation? Biological Conservation 142: 1370–1380.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnachie, M.M., B.W. van Wilgen, P.J. Ferraro, A.T. Forsyth, D.M. Richardson, M. Gaertner, and R.M. Cowling. 2016. Using counterfactuals to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of controlling biological invasions. Ecological Applications 26: 475–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, M.L. 2008. Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban ecosystems 11: 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-007-0045-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merenlender, A.M., K.L. Heise, and C. Brooks. 1998. Effects of subdividing private property on biodiversity in California’s north coast oak woodlands. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 34: 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, S.A., and W.M. Boyce. 2009. Conserving connectivity: some lessons from mountain lions in southern California. Conservation Biology 23: 275–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10: 58–62.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, A.B., M. van den Bosch, S. Maruthaveeran, and C.K. van den Bosch. 2014. Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: a review of empirical evidence. Urban ecosystems 17: 305–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oviedo, G. 2006. Community conserved areas in South America. Parks: The International Journal for Protected Area Managers 16: 49–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkes, D., G. Newell, and D. Cheal. 2003. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management & Restoration 4: S29–S38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet, R.K., T.R. Wentworth, and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63: 262–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiani, K.A., B.D. Richter, M.G. Anderson, and H.E. Richter. 2000. Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50: 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M.L. 1995. Species Diversity in Space and Time: Chapter 2-Patterns in space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupprecht, C.D.D. 2017. Informal urban green space: residents’ perception, use, and management preferences across four major Japanese shrinking cities. Land 6: 59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarlett, L., and M. McKinney. 2016. Connecting people and places: the emerging role of network governance in large landscape conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14: 116–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuch, G., S. Serrao-Neumann, E. Morgan, and D.L. Choy. 2017. Water in the city: green open spaces, land use planning and flood management: An Australian case study. Land Use Policy 63: 539–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seabloom, E.W., A.P. Dobson, and D.M. Stoms. 2002. Extinction rates under nonrandom patterns of habitat loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 11229–11234.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, D. 2006. Indigenous protected areas in Australia. Parks: The International Journal for Protected Area Managers 16: 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & Open Space District (SCAPOSD). 2012. Work Plan, July 2012-June 2015, Balancing Multiple Objectives. Sonoma, CA: The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, J.D., and J.O. Sawyer. 2001. Trees and Shrubs of California. California Natural History Guides, vol. 62. Berkeley, CA: Univirsity of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2020. What We Do: Protect Land and Water https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/protect-water-and-land/. Accessed 01 August 2020.

  • Vangansbeke, P., H. Blondeel, D. Landuyt, P. De Frenne, L. Gorissen, and K. Verheyen. 2017. Spatially combining wood production and recreation with biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 3213–3239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J.E.M., N. Dudley, D.B. Segan, and M. Hockings. 2014. The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515: 67–73.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work partially supported by the National Science Foundation [grant number 1413990] and USDA NIFA AFRI [grant number 2017-67023-26270]. We sincerely thank our families and friends for their ongoing support. Special thanks to J. White, L. & L. Norgeot, A. Young, I. Veraja, M. Brady, T. Cline, M. & S. Balestreri, G. Stewart, and A. Wong for their extensive logistical support. We also thank colleagues at University of Tennessee- Knoxville, University of California-Davis, Resources for the Future, and The Smithsonian Institution for useful discussions. Additional thanks to all staff and managers at each of the ballot protected areas and California Department of Fish and Wildlife sites included in this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Benjamin J. Crain

    Present address: Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 647 Contees Wharf Road, Edgewater, MD, 21037, USA

  2. Chad Stachowiak

    Present address: National Resource Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, 20250, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Dabney Hall, 1416 Circle Drive, Knoxville, TN, USA

    Benjamin J. Crain, Chad Stachowiak & Paul R. Armsworth

  2. Department of Ecology, Evolution, & Environmental Biology, Columbia University, 10th Floor Schermerhorn Ext, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Patrick F. McKenzie

  3. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California-Davis, Wickson Hall, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

    James N. Sanchirico

  4. Resources for the Future, 1616 P Street NW, Washington, DC, 20036, USA

    James N. Sanchirico & Kailin Kroetz

  5. School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, PO Box 875502, Tempe, AZ, 85287, USA

    Kailin Kroetz

Authors
  1. Benjamin J. Crain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chad Stachowiak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick F. McKenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James N. Sanchirico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kailin Kroetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul R. Armsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin J. Crain.

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 (PDF 137 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Crain, B.J., Stachowiak, C., McKenzie, P.F. et al. Citizens of local jurisdictions enhance plant community preservation through ballot initiatives and voter-driven conservation efforts. Ambio 50, 1237–1247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01469-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01469-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation