Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 103–114 | Cite as

Landscape-Scale Prioritization Process for Private Land Conservation in Alberta

  • Sean Ryan
  • Lorelei Hanson
  • Mike Gismondi
Article

Abstract

There are 12 conservation land trust organizations (CLTOs) in the province of Alberta, Canada that actively steward land. Together they have protected over 1.09 million hectares of land. Using in-depth interview data with published documents on CLTOs, this paper examines how CLTOs make decisions as to which projects to pursue and the kinds of justifications they offer for the projects they have completed. We identify 13 aspects that such a decision-making process should contain. The CLTOs studied have, to some degree, incorporated 7 of them. The remaining 6 aspects could easily be contributing substantially to some of the main the challenges identified in both the literature and our own research regarding private land conservation. Consequently, we recommend developing a robust landscape-scale approach to private land conservation, communicating that approach to all CLTOs, and increasing cooperation among CLTOs and between them and government.

Keywords

Private land conservation Land trusts Alberta Landscape ecology Conservation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project was part of a larger study of land trust applications by the British Columbia-Alberta Social Economy Research Alliance, funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (2006–2012). http://www.socialeconomy-bcalberta.ca/. The authors would also like to thank the interviewees, who shared their time and their thoughts with us on land conservation issues in Alberta.

References

  1. Alberta Environment, 2006. Land Trust Leadership Project: Recommendations Report. IMI Strategics.Google Scholar
  2. Andleman, S. J., and Fagan, W. F. (2000). Umbrellas and Flagships: Efficient Conservation Surrogates or Expensive Mistakes? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(11): 5954–5959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armsworth, P. R., Daily, G. C., Kareiva, P., and Sanchirico, J. N. (2006). Land market Feedbacks can Undermine Biodiversity Conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(14): 5403–5408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butsic, V., Lewis, D. J., and Radeloff, V. C. (2013). Reserve Selection With Land Market Feedbacks. Journal of Environmental Management 114: 276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, L., and Rubec, C. D. A. (2006). Land Trusts in Canada—Building Momentum for the Future. Wildlife Habitat Canada, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  6. Canadian Land Trust Alliance (2005). Canadian Land Trust: Standards and Practices. Canadian Land Trust Alliance, Smiths Falls.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, H., and Inman, A. (2012). The Voluntary Sector and Conservation for England: Achievements, Expanding Roles and Uncertain Future. Journal of Environmental Management 112: 170–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cushman, S. A., McKelvey, K. S., and Schwartz, M. K. (2009). Use of Empirically Derived Source-Destination Models to Map Regional Conservation Corridors. Conservation Biology 23(2): 368–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emery, R.B., Howerter, D.W., Armstrong, L.M., Anderson, M.G., Devries, J.H., 2009. SpATS: Spatial and Temporal Variation in Nesting Success of Prairie Ducks. Preliminary Results from the 2008 Study Areas at Beaverhill, Alberta, Milk River, Alberta, Dana Hill, Saskatchewan and Killarney, Manitoba and Results of a Mid-Project Review to Assess the Continuation of SPATS. Ducks Unlimited Canada, Institute for Wetland and Waterfowl Research, Stonewall, Manitoba.Google Scholar
  10. Ficetola, G. F., Padoa-Schioppa, E., and de Bernardi, F. (2009). Influence of Landscape Elements in Riparian Buffers on the Conservation of Semiaquatic Amphibians. Conservation Biology 23(1): 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fox, H. E., Christian, C., Nordby, J. C., Pergams, O. R. W., Petterson, G. D., and Pyke, C. R. (2006). Perceived Barriers to Integrating Social Science and Conservation. Conservation Biology 20(6): 1817–1820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of qualitative research. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick.Google Scholar
  13. Grewal, A., 2012. The Green Acreages Guide: Stewardship for Small Acreages. Land Stewardship Centre.Google Scholar
  14. Heidenreich, B. (2006). Edmonton & Area Land Trust: Land Trust Business Plan, 2006–2010. Edmonton, Alberta.Google Scholar
  15. Higgins, S., Mahon, M., and McDonagh, J. (2012). Interdisciplinary Interpretations and Applications of the Concept of Scale in Landscape Research. Journal of Environmental Management 113: 137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Higgins, J. V., Ricketts, T. H., Parrish, J. D., Dinerstein, E., Powell, G., Palminteri, S., Hoekstra, J. M., Morrison, J., Tomasek, A., and Adams, J. (2004). Beyond Noah: Saving Species is Not Enough. Conservation Biology 18(6): 1672–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hobbs, R. (2009). Woodland restoration in Scotland: Ecology, History, Culture, Economics, Politics and Change. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 2857–2865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kazmierski, J., Kram, M., Mills, E., Phemister, D., Reo, N., Riggs, C., Tefertiller, R., and Erickson, D. (2004). Conservation Planning at the Landscape Scale: A Landscape Ecology Method for Regional Land Trusts. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 47(5): 709–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kiesecker, J. M., Comendant, T., Grandmason, T., Gray, E., Hall, C., Hilsenbeck, R., Kareiva, P., Lozier, L., Naehu, P., Rissman, A. R., Shaw, M. R., and Zankel, M. (2007). Conservation Easements in Context: A Quantitative Analysis of Their use by the Nature Conservancy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5(3): 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kotliar, N. B., and Wiens, J. A. (1990). Multiple Scales of Patchiness and Patch Structure: A Hierarchical Framework for the Study. Oikos 59(2): 253–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krauss, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Tscharntke, T. (2003). How Does Landscape Context Contribute to Effects of Habitat Fragmentation on Diversity and Population Density of Butterflies? Journal of Biogeography 30: 889–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mace, G. M., Collar, N. J., Gaston, K. J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Akçakaya, H. R., Leader-Williams, N., Milner-Gulland, E. J., and Stuart, S. N. (2008). Quantification of Extinction Risk: IUCN’s System for Classifying Threatened Species. Conservation Biology 22(6): 1424–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martín-López, B., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Lomas, P. L., and Montes, C. (2009). Effects of Spatial and Temporal Scales on Cultural Services Valuation. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1050–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McDonald, R. I., Yuan-Farrell, C., Fievet, C., Moeller, M., Kareiva, P., Foster, D., Gragson, T., Kinzig, A., Kuby, L., and Redman, C. (2007). Estimating the Effects of Protected Lands on the Development and Conservation of Their Surroundings. Conservation Biology 21(6): 1526–1536.Google Scholar
  25. Moon, K., Marshall, N., and Cocklin, C. (2012). Personal Circumstances and Social Characteristics as Determinants of Landholder Participation in Biodiversity Conservation Programs. Journal of Environmental Management 113: 292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moreno-Mateos, D., and Comin, F. A. (2010). Integrating Objectives and Scales for Planning and Implementing Wetland Restoration and Creation in Agricultural Landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 2087–2095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morris, A. W. (2008). Easing Conservation? Conservation Easements, Public Accountability and Neoliberalism. Geoforum 39(1): 1215–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morrisette, P. M. (2001). Conservation Easements and the Public Good: Preserving the Environment on Private Lands. Natural Resources Journal 41(2): 373–426.Google Scholar
  29. Nassauer, J. I. (2006). Landscape Planning and Conservation Biology: Systems Thinking Revisited. Conservation Biology 20(3): 677–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Newburn, D., Reed, S., Berck, P., and Merenlender, A. (2005). Economics and Land-Use Change in Prioritizing Private Land Conservation. Conservation Biology 19(5): 1411–1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ozaki, K., Isono, M., Kawahara, T., Iida, S., Kudo, T., and Fukuyama, K. (2006). A Mechanistic Approach to Evaluation of Umbrella Species as Conservation Surrogates. Conservation Biology 20(5): 1507–1515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porensky, L. M., and Young, T. P. (2013). Edge-Effect Interactions in Fragmented and Patchy Landscapes. Conservation Biology 27(3): 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rissman, A. R., and Merenlender, A. M. (2008). The Conservation Contributions of Conservation Easements: Analysis of the San Francisco Bay Area Protected Lands Spatial Database. Ecology and Society 13(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
  34. Roberge, J., and Anglestam, P. (2004). Usefulness of the Umbrella Species Concept as a Conservation Tool. Conservation Biology 18(1): 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strager, M. P., and Rosenberger, R. S. (2007). Aggregating High-Priority Landscape Areas to the Parcel Level: An Easement Implementation Tool. Journal of Environmental Management 82: 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. The Institute for Governance, n.d. Building a Stronger, More Sustainable Land Trust Alliance Model in Canada: Summary of Findings and Looking Forward.Google Scholar
  37. Wallace, G., Theobald, D. M., Ernst, T., and King, K. (2008). Assessing the Ecological and Social Benefits of Private Land Conservation in Colorado. Conservation Biology 22(2): 284–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Western Sky Land Trust: Your Landscape of Tomorrow, n.d.Google Scholar
  39. Wu, C. F., Lin, Y. P., and Lin, S. H. (2011). A Hybrid Scheme for Comparing the Effects of Bird Diversity Conservation Approaches on Landscape Patterns and Biodiversity in the Shangan Sub-Watershed in Taiwan. Journal of Environmental Management 92: 1809–1820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Athabasca UniversityAthabascaCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, W1-34 Van Vliet Centre, University of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations