Addressing ecological, economic, and social tradeoffs of refuge expansion in constrained landscapes
- PDF / 2,500,580 Bytes
- 21 Pages / 547.087 x 737.008 pts Page_size
- 25 Downloads / 147 Views
(0123456789().,-volV) ( 01234567 89().,-volV)
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Addressing ecological, economic, and social tradeoffs of refuge expansion in constrained landscapes Marjorie R. Liberati
. Chadwick D. Rittenhouse . Jason C. Vokoun
Received: 28 February 2018 / Accepted: 5 March 2019 Ó Springer Nature B.V. 2019
Abstract Context Conservation planning increasingly needs to be effective in areas that are influenced by anthropogenic land uses, yet many planning tools do not give equal consideration to ecological, social, and economic objectives, nor do they enable identification or comparison of tradeoffs among objectives. We explore outcomes and tradeoffs for the proposed expansion of a US wildlife refuge in a region characterized by strong town character and high human population density, development, and property values. Objectives Our objectives were to: (1) determine whether acquisition targets could be achieved given competing objectives; (2) evaluate tradeoffs between social, economic, and ecological objectives; and (3) evaluate how landscape development influences tradeoffs. Methods We used genetic algorithms to generate and evaluate outcomes for refuge expansion that could systematically navigate multi-objective tradeoffs.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00798-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. M. R. Liberati (&) C. D. Rittenhouse J. C. Vokoun Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, Wildlife and Fisheries Conservation Center, University of Connecticut, 1376 Storrs Road, Unit 4087, Storrs, CT 06269-4087, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Ecological objectives included maximizing total protected habitat, priority habitats, and connectivity between protected properties. Economic and social objectives included minimizing acquisition cost, loss of areas under high development pressure, and town character conflict. Results Land acquisition targets could be met, though not without economic and social tradeoffs. Positive outcomes for area protected and connectivity resulted in poor outcomes for the other four objectives. Win–win refuge expansion solutions were available for some objectives, but there were also consistent tradeoff relationships, which were exacerbated in areas with high development pressure. Conclusion This multi-objective approach allows decision makers to account for tradeoffs and hard choices between social-ecological objectives. Explicit consideration of multiple, competing objectives and their benefits, losses, and costs increases transparency and improves decision making. Keywords Conservation Constrained landscape Land use planning Protected lands Socialecological systems
Introduction Land protection efforts and the growth of the global protected land estate have been essential for biodiversity conservation (Chape et al. 2005; Gray et al. 2016;
123
Landscape Ecol
Watson et al. 2016). Early land protection efforts tended to focus on ‘‘last great p
Data Loading...
