Environmental Management

, Volume 45, Issue 5, pp 1076–1095 | Cite as

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

  • Christopher S. Cronan
  • Robert J. Lilieholm
  • Jill Tremblay
  • Timothy Glidden
Article

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.

Keywords

Land conservation Conservation assessment Landscape metrics Landscape planning Conservation strategies Conservation easement Land trusts Working forest protection 

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

  1. 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 14:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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, MEGoogle Scholar
  3. Bley J (2007) LURC’s challenge: managing growth in Maine’s unorganized territories. Maine Policy Review 16:92–100Google Scholar
  4. 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 LibraryGoogle Scholar
  5. Brookings Institution (2006) Charting Maine’s future: an action plan for promoting sustainable prosperity and quality places. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 144 ppGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 81:247–256Google Scholar
  7. Dietz RW, Czech B (2005) Conservation deficits for the continental United States: an ecosystem Gap analysis. Conservation Biology 19:1478–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fahrig L (2001) How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100:65–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Freyfogle ET (2003) The land we share: private property and the common good. Island Press, Washington, DC, 336 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. Ginn WJ (2005) Investing in nature: case studies of land conservation in collaboration with business. Island Press, Washington, DC, 209 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 1:165–172Google Scholar
  15. 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 22:373–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jennings MD (2000) Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results. Landscape Ecology 15:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, IDGoogle Scholar
  18. Lathrop RG, Bognar JA (1998) Applying GIS and landscape ecological principles to evaluate land conservation alternatives. Landscape Urban Planning 41:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lilieholm RJ (2007) Forging a common vision for Maine’s North Woods. Maine Policy Review 16:12–25Google Scholar
  20. Lilieholm RJ, Romm JM (1992) The Pinelands National Reserve: an intergovernmental approach to nature preservation. Environmental Management 16(3):335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maine State Planning Office (1983) Natural old-growth forest stands in Maine. Planning Report 77. Augusta, MEGoogle Scholar
  22. McLaughlin NA (2005) Rethinking the perpetual nature of conservation easements. Harvard Environmental Law Review 29:421–521Google Scholar
  23. McLaughlin NA (2006) Amending perpetual conservation easements: a case study of the Myrtle Grove controversy. University of Richmond Law Review 40:1031–1097Google Scholar
  24. MDIFW (2005) Maine’s comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, AugustaGoogle Scholar
  25. NEFA (2007) The economic importance and wood flows from Maine’s forests, 2007. Northeast Foresters Association, Concord, 8 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. New England Governors Conference, Inc. (2009) Report of the blue ribbon commission on land conservation. New England Governors Conference, Inc, Boston, 46 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. Pressey RL, Taffs KH (2001) Sampling of land types by protected areas: three measures of effectiveness applied to western New South Wales. Biological Conservation 101:105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 428:640–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 255:3846–3856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, Redford KH, Wannebo AV, Woolmer G (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52:891–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scott JM, Csuti B, Jacobi JD, Estes JE (1987) Species richness: a geographic approach to protecting future biological diversity. BioScience 37:782–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 11:999–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 86:500–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 55:835–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thomas MR (2003) The use of ecologically based screening criteria in a community—sponsored open space preservation program. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46:691–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. TNC (2006) Conservation by design—a strategic framework for mission success. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  39. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2009) Revised critical habitat designated for Canada lynx. Federal Register 74(38):8667Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher S. Cronan
    • 1
  • Robert J. Lilieholm
    • 2
  • Jill Tremblay
    • 2
  • Timothy Glidden
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biology and EcologyUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  2. 2.School of Forest ResourcesUniversity of MaineOronoUSA
  3. 3.Maine State Planning OfficeLand for Maine’s Future ProgramAugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations