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

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, access via your institution.

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.

  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.

    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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

  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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

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