Biodiversity Conservation in Local Planning

被引:66
作者
Miller, James R. [1 ,2 ]
Groom, Martha [3 ]
Hess, George R. [4 ]
Steelman, Toddi [4 ]
Stokes, David L. [3 ]
Thompson, Jan [1 ]
Bowman, Troy [1 ]
Fricke, Laura [4 ]
King, Brandon [4 ]
Marquardt, Ryan [1 ]
机构
[1] Iowa State Univ, Dept Nat Resource Ecol & Management, Ames, IA 50011 USA
[2] Iowa State Univ, Dept Landscape Architecture, Ames, IA 50011 USA
[3] N Carolina State Univ, Dept Forestry & Environm Resources, Raleigh, NC 27695 USA
[4] Univ Washington, Interdisciplinary Arts & Sci Program, Bothell, WA 98011 USA
关键词
conservation policy; habitat conservation; Iowa; land-use planning; local conservation; North Carolina; urbanization; Washington; UNITED-STATES; LAND CONSERVATION; POLICY; CHALLENGES; GUIDELINES; MANAGEMENT; LANDSCAPE; DIVERSITY; PATTERNS; GROWTH;
D O I
10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01110.x
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Local land-use policy is increasingly being recognized as fundamental to biodiversity conservation in the United States. Many planners and conservation scientists have called for broader use of planning and regulatory tools to support the conservation of biodiversity at local scales. Yet little is known about the pervasiveness of these practices. We conducted an on-line survey of county, municipal, and tribal planning directors (n = 116) in 3 geographic regions of the United States: metropolitan Seattle, Washington; metropolitan Des Moines, Iowa; and the Research Triangle, North Carolina. Our objectives were to gauge the extent to which local planning departments address biodiversity conservation and to identify factors that facilitate or hinder conservation actions in local planning. We found that biodiversity conservation was seldom a major consideration in these departments. Staff time was mainly devoted to development mandates and little time was spent on biodiversity conservation. Regulations requiring conservation actions that might benefit biodiversity were uncommon, with the exception of rules governing water quality in all 3 regions and the protection of threatened and endangered species in the Seattle region. Planning tools that could enhance habitat conservation were used infrequently. Collaboration across jurisdictions was widespread, but rarely focused on conservation. Departments with a conservation specialist on staff tended to be associated with higher levels of conservation actions. Jurisdictions in the Seattle region also reported higher levels of conservation action, largely driven by state and federal mandates. Increased funding was most frequently cited as a factor that would facilitate greater consideration of biodiversity in local planning. There are numerous opportunities for conservation biologists to play a role in improving conservation planning at local scales.
引用
收藏
页码:53 / 63
页数:11
相关论文
共 52 条
[1]  
Aguirre A.A., 2002, Conservation medicine: ecological health in practice
[2]   Urbanization on the US landscape: looking ahead in the 21st century [J].
Alig, RJ ;
Kline, JD ;
Lichtenstein, M .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2004, 69 (2-3) :219-234
[3]   An evaluation of agency conservation guidelines to better address planning efforts by local government [J].
Azerrad, J. M. ;
Nilon, C. H. .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2006, 77 (03) :255-262
[4]   Noah's mandate and the birth of urban bioplanning [J].
Babbitt, B .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 1999, 13 (03) :677-678
[5]   Losing the dark: a case for a national policy on land conservation [J].
Baldwin, Robert F. ;
Trombulak, Stephen C. .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2007, 21 (05) :1133-1134
[6]   Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology [J].
Balmford, Andrew ;
Cowling, Richard M. .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2006, 20 (03) :692-695
[7]   Preserving biodiversity - Challenges for planners [J].
Beatley, T .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, 2000, 66 (01) :5-20
[8]   Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States [J].
Bengston, DN ;
Fletcher, JO ;
Nelson, KC .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2004, 69 (2-3) :271-286
[9]   STATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT - INTERGOVERNMENTAL FRAMEWORKS AND POLICY OBJECTIVES [J].
BOLLENS, SA .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, 1992, 58 (04) :454-466
[10]  
Broberg L, 2003, BIOSCIENCE, V53, P670, DOI 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0670:CELARF]2.0.CO