Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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

  • 1002 Accesses

  • 139 Citations

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bean, M.J. and Wilcove, D.S. 1997. The private-land problem. Cons. Biol. 11: 1–2.

  2. Boyce, M. 1992. Population viability analysis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23: 481–506.

  3. Cort, C.A. 1996. A survey of the use of Natural Heritage data in local land-use planning. Cons. Biol. 10: 632–637.

  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.

  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.

  6. Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment.

  7. General Accounting Office. 1994. Endangered Species Act: information on species protection on nonfederal lands. GAO/RCED-95-16.

  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.

  9. Holling, C.S. 1997. Editorial: The inaugural issue of Conservation Ecology. Cons. Ecol. 1: 1–7.

  10. Kahn, A.E. 1966. The tyranny of small decisions: Market failures, imperfections, and the limits of economics. KYKLOS 19: 23–45.

  11. Karr, J.R. 1990. Biological integrity and the goal of environmental legislation: Lessons for Conservation Biology. Cons. Biol. 4: 244–250.

  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.

  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.

  14. Noss, R.F., O'Connell, M.A., and Murphy, D.D. 1997. The Science of Conservation Planning. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

  15. Peck, S. 1998. Planning for biodiversity: Issues and examples. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

  16. Porter, D. 1997. Managing growth in America's communities. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

  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.

  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.

  19. Rockwood, P. 1995. Landscape planning for biodiversity. Landscape Urban Planning 31: 379–385.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  25. USDA 1998. 1992 National Resources Inventory. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Washington, D.C.

  26. USFWS, 1983. Habitat as a basis for environmental assessment. Report 101ESM.

  27. Vitousek P.M., Mooney, H.A., Melillo, J.M. 1997. Human domination of earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494–499.

  28. Weeks, P. and Packard, J.M. 1997. Acceptance of scientific management by natural resource dependent communities. Cons. Biol. 11: 236–245.

  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.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Theobald, D.M., Hobbs, N., Bearly, T. et al. Incorporating biological information in local land-use decision making: designing a system for conservation planning. Landscape Ecology 15, 35–45 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008165311026

Download citation

  • collaborative design
  • conservation planning
  • GIS
  • land use