IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i11p1145-d666373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Including Condition into Ecological Maps Changes Everything—A Study of Ecological Condition in the Conterminous United States

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin B. Knight

    (Wicked Solutions Environmental LLC, Boulder, CO 80304, USA)

  • Patrick J. Comer

    (NatureServe, Arlington County, VA 22201, USA)

  • Brian R. Pickard

    (Tetra Tech Inc., Pasadena, CA 91101, USA)

  • Doria R. Gordon

    (Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY 10001, USA)

  • Theodore Toombs

    (Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY 10001, USA)

Abstract

In 2021, the Biden administration signed an executive order to protect 30% of American lands by 2030. Accomplishing this ambitious goal in the U.S. requires understanding the relative contribution of public and private lands toward supporting biodiversity. New approaches are needed because existing approaches focus on quantity of habitat without incorporating quality. To fill this need, we developed a 30 m resolution national habitat condition index (HCI) that integrates quality and quantity measures of habitat. We hypothesized that including an evaluation of the quality of habitat at landscape scales, both in conservation-focused preserves and working lands would provide a better assessment of the value of geographies for conservation. We divided the conterminous U.S. by major land cover type and into natural and cultivated lands and then spatially mapped multiple anthropogenic stressors, proximity to aquatic habitat, and vegetation departure from expected natural disturbance regimes. Each map layer was then scored for site impact and distance decay and combined into a final national index. Field observations providing scored relative ecological conditions were used for HCI calibration and validation at both CONUS and regional scales. Finally, we evaluate lands by management (conservation versus working lands) and ownership (public versus private) testing the value of these lands for conservation. While we found regional differences across CONUS, functional habitat was largely independent of protection status: working lands provide clear habitat and other values. These results are relevant for guiding strategies to achieve the U.S. 30 by 30 goals. Where similar data exist in other countries, analogous modeling could be used to meet their national conservation commitments.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin B. Knight & Patrick J. Comer & Brian R. Pickard & Doria R. Gordon & Theodore Toombs, 2021. "Including Condition into Ecological Maps Changes Everything—A Study of Ecological Condition in the Conterminous United States," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:11:p:1145-:d:666373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/11/1145/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/11/1145/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferraro, Paul J. & McIntosh, Craig & Ospina, Monica, 2007. "The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 245-261, November.
    2. Monz, Christopher & D'Antonio, Ashley & Lawson, Steve & Barber, Jesse & Newman, Peter, 2016. "The ecological implications of visitor transportation in parks and protected areas: Examples from research in US National Parks," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 27-35.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Guo, Shu & Zhang, ZhongXiang, 2023. "Green credit policy and total factor productivity: Evidence from Chinese listed companies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    2. Alejandro M. Bellon, 2019. "Does animal charisma influence conservation funding for vertebrate species under the US Endangered Species Act?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 21(3), pages 399-411, July.
    3. Sims, Katharine R.E., 2010. "Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 94-114, September.
    4. Teh, Louise S.L. & Teh, Lydia C.L. & Rashid Sumaila, U., 2014. "Time preference of small-scale fishers in open access and traditionally managed reef fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 222-231.
    5. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    6. Gurun, Ayfer & Millimet, Daniel L., 2008. "Does Private Tutoring Payoff?," IZA Discussion Papers 3637, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Greenstone, Michael & Gayer, Ted, 2009. "Quasi-experimental and experimental approaches to environmental economics," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 21-44, January.
    8. Bhattacharjee, Arnab & Aravena, Claudia & Castillo, Natalia & Ehrlich, Marco & Taou, Nadia & Wagner, Thomas, 2022. "Agroforestry Programs in the Colombian Amazon: Selection, Treatment and Exposure Effects on Deforestation," National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) Discussion Papers 537, National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
    9. H. Allen Klaiber & V. Kerry Smith, 2009. "Evaluating Rubin's Causal Model for Measuring the Capitalization of Environmental Amenities," NBER Working Papers 14957, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Daniel L. Millimet & Rusty Tchernis & Muna Husain, 2010. "School Nutrition Programs and the Incidence of Childhood Obesity," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 45(3).
    11. Mariano Mezzatesta & David A. Newburn & Richard T. Woodward, 2013. "Additionality and the Adoption of Farm Conservation Practices," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 722-742.
    12. Bošković, Branko & Nøstbakken, Linda, 2017. "The cost of endangered species protection: Evidence from auctions for natural resources," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 174-192.
    13. Heagney, E.C. & Falster, D.S. & Kovač, M., 2021. "Land clearing in south-eastern Australia: Drivers, policy effects and implications for the future," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    14. Michael Brei & Agustín Pérez‐Barahona & Eric Strobl, 2020. "Protecting Species through Legislation: The Case of Sea Turtles," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 300-328, January.
    15. Jagdish Poudel & Raju Pokharel, 2021. "Financial Analysis of Habitat Conservation Banking in California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-12, November.
    16. Xuhang Shen & Ziqi Wang & Shi Li, 2023. "Access to Piped Water and Off-Farm Work Participation: Evidence from Rural China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, February.
    17. Yisong Wang & Jincheng Huang & Shiming Fang, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment of Natural Capital Based on the 3D Ecological Footprint Model: A Case Study of the Shennongjia National Park Pilot," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Bursa, Bartosz & Mailer, Markus & Axhausen, Kay W., 2022. "Travel behavior on vacation: transport mode choice of tourists at destinations," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 234-261.
    19. Grijalva, Therese & Berrens, Robert P. & Shaw, W. Douglass, 2011. "Species preservation versus development: An experimental investigation under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 995-1005, March.
    20. Christian Langpap & Joe Kerkvliet, 2010. "Allocating Conservation Resources Under The Endangered Species Act," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 110-124.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:11:p:1145-:d:666373. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.