Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:07:40.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species protection in areas conserved through community-driven direct democracy as compared with a large private land trust in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2020

Benjamin J Crain Open the ORCID record for Benjamin J Crain [Opens in a new window] ,
James N Sanchirico ,
Kailin Kroetz ,
Amy E Benefield  and
Paul R Armsworth
Benjamin J Crain*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, 647 Contees Wharf Road, Edgewater, MD 21037-0028, USA
James N Sanchirico
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA
Kailin Kroetz
Affiliation:
School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, PO Box 875502, Tempe, AZ 85287-5502, USA
Amy E Benefield
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
Paul R Armsworth
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Benjamin J Crain, Email: bcrainium@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Protected area systems include sites preserved by various institutions and mechanisms, but the benefits to biodiversity provided by different types of sites are poorly understood. Protected areas established by local communities for various reasons may provide complementary benefits to those established by large-scale agencies and organizations. Local communities are geographically constrained, however, and it remains unclear how effectively they protect biodiversity. We explored this issue by focusing on protected areas established through direct democracy via local ballot initiatives whereby communities vote to tax themselves for open space preservation. We compared the effectiveness of local ballot-protected areas to areas protected by a large-scale conservation actor, The Nature Conservancy (TNC). We evaluated how well the two protected area types correspond with amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and special status elements of natural diversity. Local ballot-protected areas differed from those of TNC in terms of size, location, proximity to urban areas and habitat diversity. In terms of potential habitat coverage, local ballot-protected areas outperformed TNC sites for all species groups with the exception of special status elements of natural diversity. While not necessarily targeting wildlife and habitats, we conclude that locally established protected areas can make an important contribution to biodiversity conservation.

Keywords

ballot propositionsbiodiversityconservation measuresenvironmental legislationgrassrootsnature reservesopen space preservationpark systemsprotected area networkspublic lands
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 47 , Issue 1: Thematic Section: Bringing Species and Ecosystems Together with Remote Sensing Tools to Develop New Biodiversity Metrics and Indicators , March 2020 , pp. 30 - 38
Copyright
© Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2020 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbitt, RJF, Scott, JM, Wilcove, DS (2000) The geography of vulnerability: incorporating species geography and human development patterns into conservation planning. Biological Conservation 96: 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abellan, P, Sanchez-Fernandez, D (2015) A gap analysis comparing the effectiveness of Natura 2000 and national protected area networks in representing European amphibians and reptiles. Biodiversity and Conservation 24: 1377–1390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alagador, D, Martins, MJ, Cerdeira, JO, Cabeza, M, Araujo, MB (2011) A probability-based approach to match species with reserves when data are at different resolutions. Biological Conservation 144: 811–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ando, AW, Shah, P (2010) Demand-side factors in optimal land conservation choice. Resource and Energy Economics 32: 203–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ando, AW, Shah, P (2016) The economics of conservation and finance: a review of the literature. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 8: 321–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aycrigg, JL, Davidson, A, Svancara, LK, Gergely, KJ, McKerrow, A, Scott, JM (2013) Representation of ecological systems within the protected areas network of the continental United States. PLoS One 8: e54689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banzhaf, HS, Oates, WE, Sanchirico, JN (2010) Success and design of local referenda for land conservation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29: 769–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkes, F (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 15188–15193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bode, M, Probert, W, Turner, WR, Wilson, KA, Venter, O (2011) Conservation planning with multiple organizations and objectives. Conservation Biology 25: 295–304.Google ScholarPubMed
Brosi, BJ, Daily, GC, Davis, FW (2006) Chapter 20: Agricultural and urban landscapes. In: The Endangered Species Act at Thirty Vol. 2: Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes, eds. Scott, JM, Goble, DD, Davis, FW, pp. 256–274. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.Google Scholar
Burton, ML, Samuelson, LJ, Pan, S (2005) Riparian woody plant diversity and forest structure along an urban–rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 8: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, LM, Vainio-Mattila, A (2003) Participatory development and community-based conservation: opportunities missed for lessons learned? Human Ecology 31: 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CDFW (2014) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Fish and Wildlife.Google Scholar
CDFW (2019) Special Animals List. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Fish and Wildlife.Google Scholar
CDOSHC (2013) City of Davis Measure O: The Open Space Protection Special Tax Fund- Progress in Protecting Open Space. Davis, CA, USA: City of Davis Open Space and Habitat Commission.Google Scholar
CIWTG (2014a) CWHR Version 9.0 Personal Computer Program. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Fish and Wildlife-California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.Google Scholar
CIWTG (2014b) Standards and Guidelines for Species Models, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Department of Fish and Wildlife-California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.Google Scholar
Clergeau, P, Savard, J-PL, Mennechez, G, Falardeau, G (1998) Bird abundance and diversity along an urban-rural gradient: a comparative study between two cities on different continents. The Condor 100: 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetzee, BWT (2017) Evaluating the ecological performance of protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 26: 231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CPAD (2015) California Protected Areas Database Manual. Oakland, CA, USA: GreenInfo Network.Google Scholar
Crain, BJ, Sánchez-Cuervo, AM, White, JW, Steinberg, S (2015) Conservation ecology of rare plants within complex local habitat networks. Oryx 49: 696–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, BJ, White, JW (2011) Categorizing locally rare plant taxa for conservation status. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 451–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, BJ, White, JW, Steinberg, SJ (2011) Geographic discrepancies between global and local rarity richness patterns and the implications for conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 3489–3500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durán, AP, Inger, R, Cantú-Salazar, L, Gaston, KJ (2016) Species richness representation within protected areas is associated with multiple interacting spatial features. Diversity and Distributions 22: 300–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EBRPD (2017) Parks. East Bay Regional Park District [www document] URL http://www.ebparks.org/parks.Google Scholar
Evans, JD (1996) Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA, USA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Fishburn, IS, Boyer, A, Kareiva, P, Gaston, KJ, Armsworth, PR (2013) Changing spatial patterns of conservation investment by a major land trust. Biological Conservation 161: 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, KJ, Charman, K, Jackson, SF, Armsworth, PR, Bonn, A, Briers, RA, Callaghan, CSQ et al. (2006) The ecological effectiveness of protected areas: the United Kingdom. Biological Conservation 132: 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, KJ, Jackson, SF, Cantú-Salazar, L, Cruz-Piñón, G (2008) The ecological performance of protected areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39: 93–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germaine, SS, Wakeling, BF (2001) Lizard species distributions and habitat occupation along an urban gradient in Tucson, Arizona, USA. Biological Conservation 97: 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, L (2012) Local Ballot Initiatives: How Citizens Change Laws with Clipboards, Conversations, and Campaigns. Madison, WI, USA: Lucy Burns Institute.Google Scholar
Hackel, JD (1999) Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife. Conservation Biology 13: 726–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwich, RH, Lyon, J (2007) Community conservation: practitioners’ answer to critics. Oryx 41: 376–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, C, Robertson, AL (2012) Landscape conservation cooperatives: bridging entities to facilitate adaptive co-governance of social–ecological systems. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17: 333–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, T, Cho, S-H, Larson, ER, Armsworth, PR (2014) Protected area acquisition costs show economies of scale with area. Ecological Economics 107: 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroetz, K, Sanchirico, JN, Armsworth, PR, Spencer Banzhaf, H (2014) Benefits of the ballot box for species conservation. Ecology Letters 17: 294–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LBI (2017) Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics. Lucy Burns Institute [www document] URL https://ballotpedia.org/Local_Ballot_Measures Google Scholar
Leppig, G, White, JW (2006) Conservation of peripheral plant populations in California. Madrono 53: 264–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louviere, JJ, Hensher, DA, Swait, JD (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, MJ, Pickett, STA, Groffman, P, Bohlen, P, Pouyat, RV, Zipperer, WC, Parmelee, RW et al. (1997) Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems 1: 21–36.10.1023/A:1014359024275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeely, JA (1994) Protected areas for the 21st century: working to provide benefits to society. Biodiversity and Conservation 3: 390–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MCP (2010) Our Work: Open Space Projects. Marin County Parks [www document]. URL http://www.marincountyparks.org/depts/pk/our-work/os Google Scholar
Miles, SR, Goudy, CB (1994) Ecological Subregions of California: Section and Subsection Descriptions. Sacramento, CA, USA: USDA, Forest Service.Google Scholar
Myers, N, Mittermeier, RA, Mittermeier, CG, Da Fonseca, GAB, Kent, J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagendra, H, Lucas, R, Honrado, JP, Jongman, RHG, Tarantino, C, Adamo, M, Mairota, P (2012) Remote sensing for conservation monitoring: Assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecological Indicators 33: 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NDD (2019) The Navigator to Direct Democracy [www document]. URL https://www.direct-democracy-navigator.org Google Scholar
Neuhäuser, M (2011) Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney Test. In: International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science, ed. Lovric, M, pp. 1656–1658. Berlin, Germany: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PNC (2007) Measure P: Save Measure J Initiative. The People of Napa County. Napa County, CA, USA: Board of Supervisors of the County of Napa.Google Scholar
Poiani, KA, Richter, BD, Anderson, MG, Richter, HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50: 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polak, T, Watson, JEM, Bennett, JR, Possingham, HP, Fuller, RA, Carwardine, J (2016) Balancing ecosystem and threatened species representation in protected areas and implications for nations achieving global conservation goals. Conservation Letters 9: 438–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rafter, JA, Abell, ML, Braselton, JP (2003) Statistics with Maple. San Diego, CA, USA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rangel, TF, Diniz-Filho, JAF, Bini, LM (2010) SAM: a comprehensive application for spatial analysis in macroecology. Ecography 33: 46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues, ASL, Andelman, SJ, Bakarr, MI, Boitani, L, Brooks, TM, Cowling, RM, Fishpool, LDC et al. (2004) Effectiveness of the global protected area network in representing species diversity. Nature 428: 640–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodríguez-Izquierdo, E, Gavin, C, Macedo-Bravo, MO (2010) Barriers and triggers to community participation across different stages of conservation management. Environmental Conservation 37: 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, ML (1995) Species Diversity in Space and Time: Chapter 2 – Patterns in Space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rybicki, J, Hanski, I (2013) Species–area relationships and extinctions caused by habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecology Letters 16: 27–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santos, MJ, Watt, T, Pincetl, S (2014) The push and pull of land use policy: reconstructing 150 years of development and conservation land acquisition. PLoS One 9: e103489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarlett, L, McKinney, M (2016) Connecting people and places: the emerging role of network governance in large landscape conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14: 116–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, BA, Kutner, LS, Adams, JS (2000) Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, D, Keil, P, Jetz, W (2012) Universal species–area and endemics–area relationships at continental scales. Nature 488: 78–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tantipisanuh, N, Savini, T, Cutter, P, Gale, GA (2016) Biodiversity gap analysis of the protected area system of the Indo-Burma Hotspot and priorities for increasing biodiversity representation. Biological Conservation 195: 203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, R (1990) Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography 6: 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tews, J, Brose, U, Grimm, V, Tielbörger, K, Wichmann, MC, Schwager, M, Jeltsch, F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TNC (2001) California North Coast Ecoregional Plan. The Nature Conservancy [www document]. URL http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/SettingPriorities/EcoregionalReports/Documents/NorthCoast_ERP.pdf Google Scholar
TNC (2015) Conservation by Design - 20th anniversary edition. The Nature Conservancy [www document]. URL https://www.nature.org/media/aboutus/conservation-by-design-20th-anniversary-edition.pdf Google Scholar
TNC (2017) TNC Lands. The Nature Conservancy [www document]. URL http://www.tnclands.tnc.org Google Scholar
TNC (2019) Our priorities: protect land and water. The Nature Conservancy [www document]. URL https://www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/protect-water-and-land Google Scholar
TPL (2017) TPL LandVote Database. The Trust for Public Land [www document]. URL www.landvote.org Google Scholar
Watson, JEM, Dudley, N, Segan, DB, Hockings, M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515: 67–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, TS, Sleeter, BM, Davis, AW (2015) Potential future land use threats to California’s protected areas. Regional Environmental Change 15: 1051–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyborn, C, Bixler, RP (2013) Collaboration and nested environmental governance: scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 123: 58–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Crain et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Crain et al. supplementary material(File)
File 18.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Crain et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Crain et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 209.2 KB