Land conservation in northern New England: Historic trends and alternative conservation futures

Meyer, Spencer R.; Cronan, Christopher S.; Lilieholm, Robert J.; Johnson, Michelle L.; Foster, David R.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.016

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This absence may be due to some southern Maine PAs that are known to have been excluded from the baseline spatial PA dataset obtained from TNC due to privacy concerns of individual landowners. However, a related analysis of the distribution of the PAs analyzed in this study (a 90 % sample of all known PAs) showed the sample was not biased by the size of PAs (Meyer et al 2014). In our tests for spatial autocorrelation using global Moran's I on PA polygons, there was a general trend of Fig.…”

Section: Spatio-temporal Clusteringmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…7 These four landscape metrics show the area, number of patterns, largest patch index, and aggregation index of the protected areas (PAs) portfolio through time for (1) all PAs, and separately for PAs in the conservation classes: (2) privately owned with a conservation easement, (3) publicly owned, (4) NGO-owned, and (5) 5 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total Area (Millions of ha) All PAs 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Number of Patches 0125 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Largest Patch Index 80 85 90 95 100 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Aggregation Index Fig. 8 These four landscape metrics show the area, number of patterns, largest patch index, and aggregation index of the protected areas (PAs) portfolio through time for (1) all PAs, and separately for each GAP class, where GAP 1 PAs have a mandate to maintain a natural state, GAP 2 PAs have a mandate to primarily maintain the natural state but allow some provisions to suppress natural disturbances, and GAP 3 PAs allow extractive uses Landscape Ecol (2015Ecol ( ) 30:1291Ecol ( -1305Ecol ( 1301 area protected (Meyer et al 2014). Many diverse public and private organizations have used a variety of different tools to protect nearly 22 % of the NNE region from future development.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Beyond these large blocks, there are tens of thousands of smaller dispersed parcels of public and private lands that are protected from development under various mechanisms. The entire region has 2.76 million ha in PAs (21.7 % of the land area), with 22.5, 29.0, and 19.4 % protected in VT, NH, and Maine, respectively (Meyer et al 2014). Approximately half of the area in PAs is protected through fee simple ownership, and half is protected through conservation easements.…”

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This gap is largely due to the fact that until now, large regional datasets that contain both spatial and temporal information about conserved areas have not been available. After developing such a dataset (Meyer et al 2014), we evaluated whether the individual actions of a decentralized land protection paradigm collectively followed the principles of reserve design. Using the northern New England (NNE) sub-region of the US, which includes Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, we addressed the following questions: (1) Are there distinct clusters of PAs in time and space?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The dataset includes 11,451 ha in six PAs established prior to 1900, which we excluded for the cluster analysis (due to concerns about missing data prior to 1900) and included for the landscape trend and structure analyses. Complete details about the resulting spatio-temporal dataset are included in Meyer et al (2014).…”

Section: Protected Areas Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An analysis of spatio-temporal landscape patterns for protected areas in northern New England: 1900–2010

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Landscape ecology theory provides insight about how large assemblages of protected areas (PAs) should be configured to protect biodiversity. We adapted these theories to evaluate whether the emergence of decentralized land protection in a largely private landscape followed the principles of reserve design. Objectives Our objectives were to determine: (1) Are there distinct clusters of PAs in time and space?(2) Are PAs becoming more spatially clustered through time? and (3) Does the resulting PA portfolio have traits characteristic of ideal reserve design? Methods We developed an historical dataset of the PAs enacted since 1900 in the northern New England region of the US. We conducted spatio-temporal clustering, landscape pattern, and aggregation analyses at both the landscape scale and for specific classes of land ownership, conservation method, and degree of protection. Results We found the frequency of PAs increased through time, and that area-weighted clusters of PAs were heavily influenced by a few recent large PAs. PA clustering around preexisting PAs was driven primarily by establishment of large PAs focused on natural resource management, rather than strict reserves. Since 1990, the complete portfolio has increased in aggregation, but reserve patches have become less aggregated and smaller, while patches that allow extractive uses have become more aggregated and larger. Conclusions Our extension of landscape ecology theory to a diverse portfolio of PAs underscores the importance of prioritizing conservation choices in the context of existing PAs, and elucidates the landscape scale effects of individual actions within a portfolio of protected areas.

show abstract

Section: Spatio-temporal Clusteringmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Areamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Protected Areas Datasetmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An analysis of spatio-temporal landscape patterns for protected areas in northern New England: 1900–2010

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Protected area, easement, and rental contract data reveal five communities of land protection in the United States

Jackson

Kroetz

Sanchirico

et al. 2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land protection efforts represent large societal investments and are critical to biodiversity conservation. Land protection involves a complex mosaic of areas managed by multiple organizations, using a variety of mechanisms to achieve different levels of protection. We develop an approach to synthesize, describe, and map this land protection diversity over large spatial scales. We use cluster analysis to find distinct “communities” of land protection based on the organizations involved, the strictness of land protection, and the protection mechanisms used. We also associate identified land protection communities with socioenvironmental variables. Applying these methods to describe land protection communities in counties across the coterminous United States, we recognize five different land protection communities. Two land protection communities occur in areas with low human population size at higher elevations and include a large amount of protected land primarily under federal management. These two community types are differentiated from one another by the particular federal agencies involved, the relative contributions of smaller actors, and the amount of protection by designations vs. conservation easements or covenants. Three remaining land protection communities have less overall protection. Land in one community is primarily protected by federally managed rental contracts and government managed easements; another is managed by a diversity of non‐federal actors through fee‐ownership and easements; and the third stands out for having the lowest amount of formally recorded protection overall. High elevation and poor quality soils are over‐represented in U.S. protected lands. Rental contracts help fill in gaps in counties with high productivity soil while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fills in gaps in low‐elevation counties. Counties with large numbers of threatened species have more and stricter protection, particularly by regional entities like water management districts. The ability to synthesize and map land protection communities can help conservation planners tailor interventions to local contexts, position local agencies to approach collaborations more strategically, and suggest new hypotheses for researchers regarding interactions among different protection mechanisms.

show abstract

Strengthening the genetic diversity conservation narrative in Indonesia: challenges and prospects

Ragamustari

Sukara²

2019

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Land conservation in northern New England: Historic trends and alternative conservation futures

Cited by 27 publications

References 21 publications

An analysis of spatio-temporal landscape patterns for protected areas in northern New England: 1900–2010

An analysis of spatio-temporal landscape patterns for protected areas in northern New England: 1900–2010

Protected area, easement, and rental contract data reveal five communities of land protection in the United States

Strengthening the genetic diversity conservation narrative in Indonesia: challenges and prospects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About