IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v8y2019i9p127-d260251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Opportunities to Conserve Farm Ponds on Private Lands: Integration of Social, Ecological, and Historical Data

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy M. Swartz

    (Center for Biodiversity, Department of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19140, USA
    Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61820, USA)

  • Jaime J. Coon

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61820, USA)

  • Jenna R. Mattes

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61820, USA)

  • James R. Miller

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61820, USA
    Program in Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61820, USA)

Abstract

In some landscapes, effective conservation of wildlife habitat requires extending beyond the boundaries of reserves and addressing stewardship of private lands. This approach could be especially valuable for the conservation of farm ponds, which are abundant and serve key agricultural functions on private lands. Though farm ponds also provide wildlife habitat, little is known about how they are managed or how values and beliefs of their owners relate to their quality. To address this knowledge gap, we collected data on pond habitat quality and management using historical aerial imagery and high-resolution Google Earth satellite imagery of the Grand River Grasslands of southern Iowa and Northern Missouri. We also collected spatially congruent social data using a mail back survey sent to 456 landowners in the region (32.7% response rate). We used mixed-effects linear regression to link indicators of habitat quality to the survey results. We found that many ponds were permanent, accessible to cattle, in early successional states, and had little wetland vegetation, indicating a scarcity of suitable habitat for wildlife. At the same time, 35–57% of survey respondents said they would be willing to change their management to benefit aquatic organisms. Our analyses indicated that higher cover of cattails correlated with ownership by respondents who regarded row crops or income from agriculture as less important and ponds tended to be temporary if owned by respondents who had many ponds. Moving forward, large landowners and those willing to manage their land to benefit wildlife may constitute a core set of future partners for conservation efforts focused on improving pond habitat in the region.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy M. Swartz & Jaime J. Coon & Jenna R. Mattes & James R. Miller, 2019. "Identifying Opportunities to Conserve Farm Ponds on Private Lands: Integration of Social, Ecological, and Historical Data," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:8:y:2019:i:9:p:127-:d:260251
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/9/127/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/9/127/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshi, Sudiksha & Arano, Kathryn G., 2009. "Determinants of private forest management decisions: A study on West Virginia NIPF landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 132-139, March.
    2. Greenland-Smith, Simon & Brazner, John & Sherren, Kate, 2016. "Farmer perceptions of wetlands and waterbodies: Using social metrics as an alternative to ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 58-69.
    3. Adam Reimer & Aaron Thompson & Linda Prokopy, 2012. "The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 29-40, March.
    4. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Christian Langpap, 2004. "Conservation Incentives Programs for Endangered Species: An Analysis of Landowner Participation," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(3), pages 375-388.
    7. Sarah C Klain & Paige Olmsted & Kai M A Chan & Terre Satterfield, 2017. "Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shangzhou Song & Shaohua Wang & Huichun Ye & Yong Guan, 2022. "Exploratory Analysis on the Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Beitang Landscape in the Shangzhuang Basin," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-22, March.

    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. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    2. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    3. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Schmitt, Thomas M. & Martín-López, Berta & Kaim, Andrea & Früh-Müller, Andrea & Koellner, Thomas, 2021. "Ecosystem services from (pre-)Alpine grasslands: Matches and mismatches between citizens’ perceived suitability and farmers’ management considerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    5. Ming-Yeu Wang & Shih-Mao Lin, 2020. "Intervention Strategies on the Wastewater Treatment Behavior of Swine Farmers: An Extended Model of the Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Marjolein C. J. Caniëls & Wim Lambrechts & Johannes (Joost) Platje & Anna Motylska-Kuźma & Bartosz Fortuński, 2021. "50 Shades of Green: Insights into Personal Values and Worldviews as Drivers of Green Purchasing Intention, Behaviour, and Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Gutierrez-Castillo, Ana & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael A., 2022. "Conservation easement landowners' willingness to accept for forest thinning and the impact of information," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    8. Elisa Giampietri & Samuele Trestini, 2023. "Pro-Environmental Viticulture: Status Quo and Perspectives from Prosecco Winegrowers in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Pouta, Eija & Hiedanpää, Juha, 2021. "Forest owners' interest in participation and their compensation claims in voluntary landscape value trading: The case of wind power parks in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    10. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    11. Gabrielle E. Roesch-McNally & J. Gordon Arbuckle & John Charles Tyndall, 2017. "What would farmers do? Adaptation intentions under a Corn Belt climate change scenario," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 333-346, June.
    12. Xingping Cao & Zeyuan Luo & Manli He & Yan Liu & Junlin Qiu, 2021. "Does the Self-Identity of Chinese Farmers in Rural Tourism Destinations Affect Their Land-Responsibility Behaviour Intention? The Mediating Effect of Multifunction Agriculture Perception," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Traxler, Emilia & Li, Tongzhe, 2020. "Agricultural Best Management Practices, A summary of adoption behaviour," Working Papers 305271, University of Guelph, Institute for the Advanced Study of Food and Agricultural Policy.
    14. Wood, Liza & Lubell, Mark & Rudnick, Jessica & Khalsa, Sat Darshan S. & Sears, Molly & Brown, Patrick H., 2022. "Mandatory information-based policy tools facilitate California farmers’ learning about nitrogen management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    15. Karppinen, Heimo & Berghäll, Sami, 2015. "Forest owners' stand improvement decisions: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 275-284.
    16. Jana-Sophie Stenzel & Inken Höller & Dajana Rath & Nina Hallensleben & Lena Spangenberg & Heide Glaesmer & Thomas Forkmann, 2020. "Do Feelings of Defeat and Entrapment Change over Time? An Investigation of the Integrated Motivational—Volitional Model of Suicidal Behaviour Using Ecological Momentary Assessments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-16, June.
    17. Stefano Orsini & Ambrogio Costanzo & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli & Susanne Padel & Monika M. Messmer & Eva Winter & Freya Schaefer, 2020. "Factors Affecting the Use of Organic Seed by Organic Farmers in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    18. Goyke, Noah & Dwivedi, Puneet & Thomas, Marc, 2019. "Do ownership structures effect forest management? An analysis of African American family forest landowners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    19. Gutierrez, Ana L. & Penn, Jerrod & Tanger, Shaun & Blazier, Michael, 2020. "Conservation Easement Landowners’ WTA Compensation to Thin their Forest," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304551, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Nadia Adnan & Shahrina Md Nordin, 2021. "How COVID 19 effect Malaysian paddy industry? Adoption of green fertilizer a potential resolution," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 8089-8129, June.

    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:8:y:2019:i:9:p:127-:d:260251. 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.