4.6 Article

An interdisciplinary assessment of private conservation areas in the Western United States

期刊

AMBIO
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 150-162

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-020-01323-x

关键词

Conservation bundles; Ecosystem services; Private lands; Protected areas; Social-ecological systems; Transdisciplinary science

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL
  2. National Science Foundation [IIA-1301792]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study utilized the ecosystem services framework to assess private lands in Idaho and identify future priority areas for conservation easements. By mapping the spatial delivery of conservation targets and exploring public awareness, the study found potential priority areas for conservation easements to guide land trust conservation efforts. Public lands were found to provide highest levels of conservation targets, with no difference seen in private areas and conservation easements in target provision.
Conservation easements are the fastest growing private conservation strategy in the United States. However, mechanisms to assess private land conservation as well as their support by the general public are not well understood. This study uses the ecosystem services framework for assessing existing private lands in Idaho and identifies areas for future conservation easements. Using conservation targets of the land trust as a guide for selecting ecosystem services, we (a) mapped the spatial delivery of conservation targets across public and private lands, (b) explored public awareness in terms of social importance and vulnerability, and (c) mapped future priority areas by characterizing conservation bundles. We found that public lands provided the highest levels of conservation targets, and we found no difference in conservation target provision between private areas and conservation easements. The spatial characterization of conservation target bundles identified potential future priority areas for conservation easements, which can guide planning of land trust conservation efforts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据