Connecting Landscape Fragments Through Riparian Zones

  • Gary Bentrup
  • Mike Dosskey
  • Gary Wells
  • Michele Schoeneberger
Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 15)


Restoring forest ecosystem goods and services to agricultural landscapes can be a daunting challenge that stems from the unfeasibility of converting large tracts of food-producing land back into forest and of converting farmers and farming communities into forest managers. Natural science principles suggest that a resolution may be possible through restoration of forest in riparian zones. Riparian zones occupy a small portion of landscapes, but can yield high levels of multiple ecosystem goods and services. Success, however, will require application of social science principles that govern whether farmers, landholders, and communities accept and implement riparian forest restoration. Conducting a multi-scale planning process is important for integrating both natural and social science principles in a way that produces effective restoration plans and encourages their implementation.


Ecosystem Service Geographic Information System Riparian Buffer Riparian Zone Agricultural Landscape 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Al-kodmany K (1999) Using visualization techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation, and evaluation. Landsc Urban Plan 45:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Averitt E, Steiner F, Yabes R, Patten D (1994) An assessment of the Verde River Corridor Project in Arizona. Landsc Urban Plan 28:161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benayas JMR, Bullock JM, Newton AC (2008) Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation, and agricultural land use. Front Ecol Environ 6:329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentrup G (2001) Evaluation of a collaborative model: a case study analysis of watershed planning in the Intermountain West. Environ Manag 27:739–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentrup G (2008) Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. GTR-SRS-109, US For Serv, South Res Sta, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentrup G, Schoeneberger MM, Dosskey MG, Wells G (2003) The fourth P: planning for multi-purpose riparian buffers. In: Proceedings of the 8th North American agroforesty conference, CorvallisGoogle Scholar
  7. Bentrup G, Dosskey M, Wells G (2008) Conducting landscape assessments for agroforestry. AF-39, USDA Natl Agrofor Cent, Lincoln.
  8. Blay D, Appiah M, Damnyag L, Dwomoh FK, Luukkanen O, Pappinen A (2008) Involving local farmers in rehabilitation of degraded tropical forests: some lessons from Ghana. Environ Dev Sustain 10:503–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breshears DD (2006) The grassland-forest continuum: trends in ecosystem properties for woody plant mosaics? Front Ecol Environ 4:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crooks KR, Sanjayan M (2006) Connectivity conservation. Cambridge Univ Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dosskey MG (2001) Toward quantifying water pollution abatement in response to installing buffers on crop land. Environ Manag 28:577–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dramstad WE, Olson JD, Forman RTT (1996) Landscape ecology principles in landscape architecture and land-use planning. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. Dutcher DD, Finley JC, Luloff AE, Johnson J (2004) Landowner perceptions of protecting and establishing riparian forests: a qualitative analysis. Soc Nat Resour 17:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gadd ME (2005) Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environ Conserv 32:50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garrett HE, Rietveld WJ, Fisher RF (2000) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. Am Soc Agron, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray B (1989) Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass Publ, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan RL (1998) With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Kennedy C, Wilkinson J, Balch J (2003) Conservation thresholds for land use planners. Environ Law Inst, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Lowrance R, Altier LS, Newbold JD, Schnabel RR, Groffman PM, Denver JM, Correll DL, Gilliam JW, Robinson JL, Brinsfield RB, Staver KW, Lucas W, Todd AH (1995) Water quality functions of riparian forest buffer systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA 903-R-95-004. Technol Transf Rep, Chesap Bay Program, AnnapGoogle Scholar
  21. Manning AD, Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB (2006) Scattered trees are keystone structures – implications for conservation. Biol Conserv 132:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matson PA, Vitousek PM (2006) Agricultural intensification: will land spared from farming be land spared for nature? Conserv Biol 20:709–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Naiman RJ, Décamps H, McClain ME (2005) Riparia: ecology, conservation, and management of streamside communities. Elsevier Academic Press, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. Nair PKR, Allen SC, Bannister ME (2005) Agroforestry today: an analysis of the 750 presentations to the 1st World Congress of Agroforestry. J For 103:417–421Google Scholar
  26. Nassauer JI (1988) The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a form of care. Hortic Sci 23:973–977Google Scholar
  27. Nassauer JI (1995) Messy ecosystems: orderly frames. Landsc J 14:161–170Google Scholar
  28. Nassauer JI, Kosek SE, Corry RC (2001) Meeting public expectations with ecological innovation in riparian landscapes. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37:1439–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. National Research Council (NRC) (1993) Soil and water quality: agenda for agriculture. Natl Acad Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. National Research Council (NRC) (2002) Riparian areas: functions and strategies for management. Natl Acad Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Parren MPE, Sam MK (2003) Elephant corridor creation and local livelihood improvement in West Africa. In: Proceedings of the international conference on rural livelihoods, forests and biodiversity. BonnGoogle Scholar
  32. Rhodes HM, Leland LS Jr, Niven BE (2002) Farmers, streams, information, and money: does informing farmers about riparian management have any effect? Environ Manag 30:665–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenberg S, Margerum RD (2008) Landowner motivations for watershed restoration: lessons from five watersheds. J Environ Plan Manag 51:477–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryan RL (1998) Local perceptions and values for a midwestern river corridor. Landsc Urban Plan 42:225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ryan RL, Erickson DL, De Young R (2003) Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural landscape. J Environ Plan Manag 46:19–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schaich H (2009) Local residents’ perceptions of floodplain restoration measures in Luxembourg’s Syr Valley. Landsc Urban Plan 93:20–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schrader C (1995) Rural greenway planning: the role of streamland perception in landowner acceptance of land management strategies. Landsc Urban Plan 33:375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araújo MB, Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, de la Vega-Leinert AC, Erhard M, Ewert F, Glendining M, House JI, Kankaanpää S, Klein RJT, Lavorel S, Lindner M, Metzger MJ, Meyer J, Mitchell TD, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabaté S, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith J, Smith P, Sykes MT, Thonicke K, Thuiller W, Tuck G, Zaehle S, Zierl B (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310:1333–1337PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Selin S, Chavez D (1995) Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environ Manag 19:189–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith DS, Hellmund PC (1993) Ecology of greenways. Univ Minn Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  41. Steinitz C (1990) A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other design professionals). Landsc J 9:136–143Google Scholar
  42. Sullivan WC, Anderson OM, Lovell ST (2004) Agricultural buffers at the rural-urban fringe: an examination of approval by farmers, residents, and academics in the Midwestern United States. Landsc Urban Plan 69:299–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sweeney B (1993) Effects of streamside vegetation on macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in eastern North America. Proc Acad Nat Sci Phila 144:291–340Google Scholar
  44. Walter T, Dosskey M, Khanna M, Miller J, Tomer M, Wiens J (2007) The science of targeting within landscapes and watersheds to improve conservation effectiveness. In: Schnepf M, Cox C (eds) Managing agricultural landscapes for environmental quality: strengthening the science base. Soil and Water Conser Soc, AnkenyGoogle Scholar
  45. Welsch DJ (1991) Riparian forest buffers: function and design for protection and enhancement of water resources. NA-PR-07-91. US For Serv, Northeast Area State and Priv For, RadnorGoogle Scholar
  46. Wenger S (1999) A review of the scientific literature on riparian buffer width, extent, and vegetation. Univ GA Inst Ecol, AthensGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary Bentrup
    • 1
  • Mike Dosskey
    • 1
  • Gary Wells
    • 2
  • Michele Schoeneberger
    • 1
  1. 1.US Forest ServiceUSDA National Agroforestry CenterLincolnUSA
  2. 2.Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUSDA National Agroforestry CenterLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations