Potential future land use threats to California’s protected areas

Wilson, Tamara S.; Sleeter, Benjamin M.; Davis, Adam Wilkinson

doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0686-9

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Proximity impacts result from the fragmentation and degradation of land near and between protected areas, reducing ecological flows of energy, organisms, and goods (16)(17)(18)(19)(20). In a study of 57 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas

Hernandez

Hoffacker

Murphy-Mariscal

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

236

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decisions determining the use of land for energy are of exigent concern as land scarcity, the need for ecosystem services, and demands for energy generation have concomitantly increased globally. Utility-scale solar energy (USSE) [i.e., ≥1 megawatt (MW)] development requires large quantities of space and land; however, studies quantifying the effect of USSE on land cover change and protected areas are limited. We assessed siting impacts of >160 USSE installations by technology type [photovoltaic (PV) vs. concentrating solar power (CSP)], area (in square kilometers), and capacity (in MW) within the global solar hot spot of the state of California (United States). Additionally, we used the Carnegie Energy and Environmental Compatibility model, a multiple criteria model, to quantify each installation according to environmental and technical compatibility. Last, we evaluated installations according to their proximity to protected areas, including inventoried roadless areas, endangered and threatened species habitat, and federally protected areas. We found the plurality of USSE (6,995 MW) in California is sited in shrublands and scrublands, comprising 375 km2 of land cover change. Twenty-eight percent of USSE installations are located in croplands and pastures, comprising 155 km2 of change. Less than 15% of USSE installations are sited in “Compatible” areas. The majority of “Incompatible” USSE power plants are sited far from existing transmission infrastructure, and all USSE installations average at most 7 and 5 km from protected areas, for PV and CSP, respectively. Where energy, food, and conservation goals intersect, environmental compatibility can be achieved when resource opportunities, constraints, and trade-offs are integrated into siting decisions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies have underscored the role that proximity of threats to protected areas plays in meeting conservation goals (16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Protected areas may preclude habitat loss within boundaries; however, a prevailing cause of degradation within protected areas is land use and land cover change in surrounding areas.…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas

Hernandez

Hoffacker

Murphy-Mariscal

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

236

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Throughout the state, conservation measures (such as zoning regulations, conservation purchases, conservation easements, etc.) have been designed to protect the health and function of coastal ecosystems, and to preserve the scenic, and recreational value of these lands (Endicott, 1993;Newburn, Reed, Berck, & Merenlender, 2005;Yonavjak & Gartner, 2011;Wilson et al, 2015;Owley & Rissman, 2016). However, a common challenge to policy makers, and resource managers is understanding the effectiveness of such policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the human population continues to grow, and consumption patterns change, more land is needed to meet an increasing demand for food and housing (He, Zhang, Hunag, & Zhao, 2016;Nelson et al, 2010;Radeloff, Hammer, & Stewart, 2005;Wilson, Sleeter, & Davis, 2015). Land use decisions, whether they refer to changing existing land management practices, or converting natural landscapes for human use, can fundamentally change ecosystem health, balance, and species composition (Foley et al, 2005;Turner et al, 2007;Ellis et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the United States, the rate of change recorded for coastal land cover is twice that of the rest of the country (NOAA -Office for Coastal Management, 2017). In California, increased residential development and agricultural expansion have contributed to significant land cover changes in coastal areas (Hale et al, 2009;Merenlender, 2000;Potter, 2013;Sleeter et al, 2011;Wilson et al, 2015). Land cover changes that convert natural vegetation to either developed or agricultural uses not only dramatically change the landscape, ecology, and scenery of the coastal region (Merenlender, 2000;Newburn, Reed, Berck, & Merenlender, 2006), but also impact the regional carbon budget by altering the carbon storage capacity of coastal ecosystems (Houghton & Nassikas, 2017;Pielke et al, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Avoided land use conversions and carbon loss from conservation purchases in California

Moanga

Schroeter

Ackerly

et al. 2018

Journal of Land Use Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversion of natural lands to residential and agricultural uses can limit carbon (C) storage. Conservation measures, such as purchasing land to prevent development, can preserve stored aboveground C. However, since it is difficult to know what would happen to the land in the absence of conservation interventions, the additional carbon benefit of these programs remains unknown. Therefore, we analyzed 73 coastal parcels (292,184 total acres) acquired by the California State Coastal Conservancy (SCC) and developed counterfactual scenarios to highlight the impact of conservation actions. We found that an additional 55 * 10 3 Mg aboveground C (1.357% of the total stored carbon) was protected. The methodology we develop here, which incorporates expert opinion and neighboring land conversion trends, effectively evaluates the impact of conservation purchases to prevent land conversion, and could be used to measure changes of various ecosystem services. KEYWORDS: Land cover change; land use; landscape conservation; counterfactual analysis; highest and best use (HBU) of land Data To model land cover, we used geospatial data from the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LandFire) (Ryan & Opperman, 2013). The LandFire program is an interagency collaboration between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior initiated in response to the threat of mega-fires, and designed to provide consistent landscape scale data to help cross-boundary planning and land management (LandFire, n.d.). The LandFire database provides a comprehensive set of quantitative vegetation models and nationwide digital spatial data layers (30 m resolution) on vegetation cover, fire, disturbance regimes, and fuel loads (Ryan & Opperman, 2013). To effectively document land cover changes through time, we focused on differences in vegetation cover between the years 2001 and 2010. Among the properties studied, 39 were purchased during this time period (see Table A1 in Appendix). We chose this specific time frame because the aboveground C data (used to estimate the amount of avoided C emissions) was calculated by Gonzalez et al. (2015) for the time period 2001-2010.

show abstract

Wilderness areas in a changing landscape: changes in land use, land cover, and climate

Aycrigg

McCarley

Belote³

et al. 2021

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wilderness areas are not immune to changes in land use, land cover, and/or climate. Future changes will intensify the balancing act of maintaining ecological conditions and untrammeled character within wilderness areas. We assessed the quantitative and spatial changes in land use, land cover, and climate predicted to occur in and around wilderness areas by (1) quantifying projected changes in land use and land cover around wilderness areas; (2) evaluating if public lands surrounding wilderness areas can buffer future land‐use change; (3) quantifying future climate conditions in and around wilderness areas; and (4) identifying wilderness areas expected to experience the most change in land use, land cover, and climate. We used projections of land use (four variables), land cover (five variables), and climate (nine variables) to assess changes for 707 wilderness areas in the contiguous United States by mid‐21st century under two scenarios (medium‐low and high). We ranked all wilderness areas relative to each other by summing and ranking decile values for each land use, land cover, and climate variable and calculating a multivariate metric of future change. All wilderness areas were projected to experience some level of change by mid‐century. The greatest land‐use changes were associated with increases in agriculture, clear cutting, and developed land, while the greatest land cover changes were observed for grassland, forest, and shrubland. In 51.6% and 73.8% of wilderness areas, core area of natural vegetation surrounding wilderness was projected to decrease for the medium‐low and high scenarios, respectfully. Presence of public land did not mitigate the influence of land‐use change around wilderness areas. Geographically, projected changes occurred throughout the contiguous U.S., with areas in the northeast and upper Midwest projected to have the greatest land‐use and climate change and the southwestern U.S. projected to undergo the greatest land cover and climate change. Our results provide insights into potential future threats to wilderness areas and the challenges associated with wilderness stewardship and climate adaptation. Despite the high degree of protection and remoteness of wilderness areas, effective management and preservation of these lands must consider future changes in land use, land cover, and climate.

show abstract

Potential future land use threats to California’s protected areas

Cited by 24 publications

References 77 publications

Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas

Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas

Avoided land use conversions and carbon loss from conservation purchases in California

Wilderness areas in a changing landscape: changes in land use, land cover, and climate

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About