Collateral benefits from public and private conservation lands: a comparison of ecosystem service capacities

被引:12
|
作者
Villamagna, A. [1 ]
Scott, L. [2 ]
Gillespie, J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Virginia Tech, Dept Fish & Wildlife Conservat, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
[2] Virginia Tech, Dept Crop & Soil Environm Sci, Environm Sci Program, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA
关键词
conservation easements; geographic information systems; positive externalities; protected areas; PROTECTED AREAS; BIODIVERSITY; INDICATOR; EASEMENTS; FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.1017/S0376892914000393
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Protected areas remain the most commonly used tool for in situ conservation; however growth in the USA's system of public lands has stagnated while private land conservation continues to expand. Easements can provide a range of ecosystem services (ESs), but it is unknown whether conservation easements maintain ES capacities equivalent to public protected areas. Evaluation of the capacity of seven ESs on federal and state protected areas and conservation easements in the USA using spatially-explicit ES models and publicly available data indicated that ES capacities in easements were equal to or greater than capacities within state or federal protected areas for six of seven services and, when bundled together, conservation easements protected greater focal ES capacity than other conservation areas. Economic incentive programmes and regulatory mechanisms may be used to stimulate capacity improvements for surface water regulation, riparian filtration, erosion control, and carbon storage on conservation easements, and landscape-level conservation efforts should (1) continue to protect natural and uninhabited areas that provide ecosystem and biological diversity, (2) expand private conservation efforts close to human population centres, and (3) limit future development to areas with high regulating service capacity that can sustain new population growth.
引用
收藏
页码:204 / 215
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Private lands, public benefits: the potential for wildlife habitat and public recreation on private lands in Ohio
    Slagle, Kristina M.
    Karns, Gabriel
    Bruskotter, Jeremy T.
    [J]. HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE, 2024, 29 (05) : 535 - 539
  • [2] WYOMING RANCHERS COORDINATE CONSERVATION ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS
    FOSHER, DA
    SCHELDT, RS
    [J]. SOIL CONSERVATION, 1976, 41 (12): : 20 - 21
  • [3] Inequity in ecosystem service delivery: socioeconomic gaps in the public-private conservation network
    Villamagna, Amy M.
    Mogollon, Beatriz
    Angermeier, Paul L.
    [J]. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2017, 22 (01):
  • [4] Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs
    Johnson, Kris A.
    Dalzell, Brent J.
    Donahue, Marie
    Gourevitch, Jesse
    Johnson, Dennis L.
    Karlovits, Greg S.
    Keeler, Bonnie
    Smith, Jason T.
    [J]. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2016, 18 : 175 - 185
  • [5] Stewardship responsibility of Pennsylvania public and private lands for songbird conservation
    Stauffer, Glenn E.
    Miller, David A. W.
    Wilson, Andrew M.
    Brittingham, Margaret
    Brauning, Daniel W.
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2017, 213 : 185 - 193
  • [6] Conservation easements and the public good: Preserving the environment on private lands
    Morrisette, PM
    [J]. NATURAL RESOURCES JOURNAL, 2001, 41 (02) : 373 - 426
  • [7] A comparison of public lands and farmlands for grassland bird conservation
    Cunningham, MA
    [J]. PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER, 2005, 57 (01): : 51 - 65
  • [8] From conquest to conservation: Public lands legacy
    Carlson, PH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE WEST, 2004, 43 (01) : 101 - 101
  • [9] Reaping the benefits of digital transformation through Public-Private Partnership: A service ecosystem view applied to healthcare
    Casprini, Elena
    Palumbo, Rocco
    [J]. GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY AND GOVERNANCE, 2022, 2 (04): : 453 - 476
  • [10] Reaping the benefits of digital transformation through Public-Private Partnership: A service ecosystem view applied to healthcare
    Elena Casprini
    Rocco Palumbo
    [J]. Global Public Policy and Governance, 2022, 2 : 453 - 476