Landscape Ecology

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 35–45

Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning

  • David M. Theobald
  • N.T. Hobbs
  • Tammy Bearly
  • Jim A. Zack
  • Tanya Shenk
  • William E. Riebsame
Article

Abstract

Human settlement is a formidable agent of change affecting fundamental ecological processes. Decisions governing these land-use changes occur almost exclusively at the local level and, as a result, they are made at many different locations and times. Consequently, it is difficult for ecologists to provide needed scientific support for these choices. We built an information system designed to support conservation decisions at local scales by offering data over the Internet. We collaborated with local stakeholders (e.g., developers, planners, politicians, land owners, environmental activists) to design the system. This collaboration produced several generalizations about effective design of information systems to support conservation. The most important of these is the idea that ecological data and analysis must be understood by those who will be affected by the decisions. Also, planning for conservation is a process that uses scientific data, but that ultimately depends on the expression of human values. A major challenge landscape ecologists face is to extend general landscape principles to provide specific scientific information needed for local land-use planning.

collaborative design conservation planning GIS land use 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bean, M.J. and Wilcove, D.S. 1997. The private-land problem. Cons. Biol. 11: 1–2.Google Scholar
  2. Boyce, M. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 481–506.Google Scholar
  3. Cort, C.A. 1996. A survey of the use of Natural Heritage data in local land-use planning. Cons. Biol. 10: 632–637.Google Scholar
  4. Douglas, I. 1994. Human settlements. In Changes in land use and land cover: a global perspective. pp. 149–169. Edited by W.B. Meyer and B.L. Turner II. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  5. Duerkson, C.J., Hobbs, N.T., Elliott, D.L., Johnson, E., and Miller, J.R. 1996. Managing development for people and wildlife: A handbook for habitat protection by local governments. American Planning Association, PAS #470/471. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  6. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment.Google Scholar
  7. General Accounting Office. 1994. Endangered Species Act: information on species protection on nonfederal lands. GAO/RCED-95-16.Google Scholar
  8. Hobbs, N.T., Gross, J.E., Miller, J.R., Malkinson, D., Gill, R.B., and Schrupp, D.L. 1994. SCoP: A System for Conservation Planning Project Proposal. March 1, 1994. Colorado Division of Wildlife and Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University.Google Scholar
  9. Holling, C.S. 1997. Editorial: The inaugural issue of Conservation Ecology. Cons. Ecol. 1: 1–7.Google Scholar
  10. Kahn, A.E. 1966. The tyranny of small decisions: Market failures, imperfections, and the limits of economics. KYKLOS 19: 23–45.Google Scholar
  11. Karr, J.R. 1990. Biological integrity and the goal of environmental legislation: Lessons for Conservation Biology. Cons. Biol. 4: 244–250.Google Scholar
  12. Meredith, T. 1996. Linking science and citizens: Exploring the use of geographic information and analysis in community-based biodiversity conservation initiatives. Human Ecol. Rev. 3: 231–237.Google Scholar
  13. Murphy, D.D. and Noon, B.R. 1992. Integrating scientific methods with habitat conservation planning: Reserve design for Northern Spotted Owls. Ecol. Appl. 2: 3–17.Google Scholar
  14. Noss, R.F., O'Connell, M.A., and Murphy, D.D. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  15. Peck, S. 1998. Planning for biodiversity: Issues and examples. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  16. Porter, D. 1997. Managing growth in America's communities. Island Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. Rejeski, D. 1993. GIS and risk: A three-culture problem. In Environmental Modeling with GIS. pp. 318–331. Edited by M.F. Goodchild, B.O. Parks, and L.T. Steyaert. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Riebsame, W.E., Gosnell, H., and Theobald, D.M. 1996. Land use and landscape change in the Colorado mountains I: Theory, scale, and pattern. Mountain Res. Development 16: 395–405.Google Scholar
  19. Rockwood, P. 1995. Landscape planning for biodiversity. Landscape Urban Planning 31: 379–385.Google Scholar
  20. Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D'Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C., Jr., Ulliman, J., and Wright, G. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monographs 123: 41 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Soule, M.E. 1991. Land Use Planning and Wildlife Maintenance: Guidelines for Conserving Wildlife in an Urban Landscape. J. Am. Planning Assoc. 57: 313–323.Google Scholar
  22. Steinitz, C., Binford, M., Cote, P., Edwards, T., Jr., Ervin, S., Forman, R.T.T., Johnson, C., Kiester, R., Mouat, D., Olson, D., Shearer, A., Toth, R., and Wills, R. 1996. Biodiversity and landscape planning: Alternative futures for the region of Camp Pendleton, California. Harvard University Graduate School of Design.Google Scholar
  23. Theobald, D.M. and Hobbs, N.T. 1998. Forecasting rural land use change: A comparison of regression-and spatial transition-based models. Geogr. Env. Modelling 2: 57–74.Google Scholar
  24. Theobald, D.M., Miller, J.M., and Hobbs, N.T. 1997. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape Urban Planning 39: 25–36.Google Scholar
  25. USDA 1998. 1992 National Resources Inventory. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  26. USFWS, 1983. Habitat as a basis for environmental assessment. Report 101ESM.Google Scholar
  27. Vitousek P.M., Mooney, H.A., Melillo, J.M. 1997. Human domination of earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499.Google Scholar
  28. Weeks, P. and Packard, J.M. 1997. Acceptance of scientific management by natural resource dependent communities. Cons. Biol. 11: 236–245.Google Scholar
  29. White, D., Minotti, P.G., Barczak, M.J., Sifneos, J.C., Freemark, K.E., Santelmann, M.V., Steinitz, C.F., Kiester, A.R., and Preston, E.M. 1997. Assessing risks to biodiversity from future landscape change. Cons. Biol. 11: 1–13.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Theobald
    • 1
  • N.T. Hobbs
    • 1
  • Tammy Bearly
    • 1
  • Jim A. Zack
    • 2
  • Tanya Shenk
    • 3
  • William E. Riebsame
    • 4
  1. 1.Natural Resource Ecology LaboratoryColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Geomega, Inc.BoulderUSA
  3. 3.Terrestrial Research SectionColorado Division of WildlifeFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.Department of GeographyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations