Conservation Planning Tools Assessmentmedia2.planning.org/APA2012/Presentations/S610... ·...

Partnership between APA, USDA Forest Service, and Clemson University

Created to assess and better understand planners’ use of and needs for conservation planning tools.

Conservation Planning Tools Assessment

Conservation Planning Tools Assessment

1,872 respondents

82% of sample work as professional planners (others include: academics, non-profit employees, engaged citizens, attorneys, etc.)

65% Public Sector

17% Private Sector

All states represented, including D.C., Puerto Rico, & Virgin Islands

Conservation Planning Tools Assessment: DEMOGRAPHICS

What best describes the primary jurisdiction type you do conservation planning for?

Conservation Planning Tools Assessment: DEMOGRAPHICS What is the population of the primary jurisdiction

for which you have worked on conservation planning?

Conservation Planning Tools Assessment: UTILIZATION OF GIS TOOLS How often does your organization utilize Geographic

Information System (GIS) tools for conservation planning?

74%

15%

There is a strong support for conservation planning

tools in our organization. 49%

Conservation Planning Tools Assessment:

ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT

Our organization is very aware of the capabilities of

conservation tools for planning-related work. 48%

Our organization has access to sufficient technical

support for conservation planning tools. 44%

Our organization provides or pays for all of the

training we need in conservation planning tools. 27%

Our organization has funds allocated to invest

sufficiently in conservation planning tools. 18%

Which of the following open space conservation planning tools are you aware of?


AWARENESS of Identified Tools

42%

23%


USEFULNESS of Identified Tools For those you are aware of, how useful do you find each open space conservation planning tool to your organization/jurisdiction?

% who ranked 4 or 5 (on a 5-point scale):

Natureserve Vista.…23%

RAMAS GIS….………….22%

Corridor Designer.….19%

MARXAN/Zonation…18%

FunConn……………………18%

Community VIZ……….16%

Miradi…….…………………11%

Climate Wizard……….10%

Circuitscape….…………10%

Maxent/other SDM……9%

UrbanSim……………………9%

Mean Summary (on a 5-point scale):

FunConn….………………….4.0

Miradi………...……………….3.7

Marxan/Zonation………3.6

Natureserve Vista……..3.6

Corridor Designer………3.5

RAMAS GIS…………………3.4

Climate Wizard………….3.4

Circuitscape….……………3.3

Maxent/other SDM….3.3

Community VIZ….………3.2

UrbanSim…….………………3.2

Scale:

5 = very useful

1 = not at all useful


LEVEL OF PROFICIENCY with Identified Tools For those you use, how proficient are you with each open space conservation planning tool?

Scale:

5 = very proficient 1 = not at all proficient


PUTTING IT INTO PERSPECTIVE

LEGEND:

Total # of Respondents Total # Aware of Tool Total # of Tool Users Total # of Proficient Users


BARRIERS What factors have prevented you from using conservation tools in your work?

TOP 3 ANSWERS:

Cost of Software 55%

Time Needed to Learn the Tool 50%

Cost of Training 47% ______________________________

“Current tools are sufficient.” 2%


COMMUNICATING WITH DECISION MAKERS How easy or difficult is it for you to communicate conservation planning information with decision makers in your primary jurisdiction/client?

%

40%

26%

27%


REGIONS: COMMUNICATING WITH DECISION MAKERS

How easy or difficult is it for you to communicate conservation planning information with decision makers in your primary jurisdiction/client?

Percent Very Easy / Somewhat Easy


USEFULNESS OF MEDIA TYPES

How useful do you find each media type in communicating conservation planning information with decision makers in your primary jurisdiction/with clients?

Maps (printed) 79% Mapping Tools (electronic) 78% Visualization Tools 78% Social Media 14%


ASSISTANCE

In the last 12 months, have you received assistance from any local land management or conservation organizations in any of your conservation planning efforts?

Local Land Trust 51%

National Conservation Organization 49% (The Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land,…)

State Land Management Agency 46%

Local Land Management Agency 30%

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 26% U.S.D.A. Forest Service 17% U.S. National Park Service 14% U.S. Bureau of Land Management 9%


INTEREST IN TRAINING

What is your level of interest in web-based training or workshops focused on the use of specific conservation planning tools and issues related to the tools?

Percent Very High/ Somewhat High


CONCLUSIONS / DISCUSSION

Tool Awareness, Use, & Proficiency

Barriers: Time and Money

Need and Demand for Training

Visual Tools are Best

Conservation Planning is Widespread

Assistance is Available at Many Levels

Landscape

Conservation Models

By:

Dr. Rob Baldwin and Don Lipscomb Department of Agricultural, Forestry, and

Environmental Sciences

Clemson University

Model ?

• The abstraction and simplification of

a real-world system (Williams, Nichols, and

Conroy,Analysis and Management of Animal Populations)

• All models are wrong…but some are

useful (George Box, Statistician)

• A guide to help us think about

problems and acknowledge

assumptions.

Landscape?

• Visible features of an area of land.

• Includes physical elements: – Landform

– Mountains

– Water bodies

• Includes Living and human elements: – Vegetation

– Land use

– Structures (buildings, roads, etc.)

Landscape Conservation Models

• Decision Support models for the conservation of

wildlife, habitat, water, or other land resources.

• These models are usually spatial in that they are

integrated with a GIS program.

• They require input of spatial and tabular data at

a regional or landscape level.

• They are rule based (need rules & parameters)

• They address specific landscape level problems:

Wildlife Assessment Models

• Wildlife Population:

– Habitat assessment

• Needs

• Availability

– Population dynamics

– Population history

– Population viability

– Population cycles

Landuse Assessment Models

• Landscape fragmentation

• Habitat continuity assessment

• Protected area selection

• Reserve and recreational

areas

• Connection corridors

Conservation Strategy Models

• Administrative level

• Strategic level

• Operational level:

– Starting state

– Targets

– Threats

– Methods & alternatives

– Monitoring & evaluation

– Adjustment

Other Conservation Models

• Atmospheric

• Economic

• Political

• Human population

• Resource

• Exploitation

Some Wildlife Assessment Models:

• Expert Opinion – species distribution (birds)

• Maxent – species habitat modeling

• Presence – patch occupancy (birds)

• Ramas GIS – population viability & risk

assessment

• HEXSIM – population life history simulator

Some Landuse Assessment

• Marxan – Reserve location

• Zonation – Reserve location

• Corridor Design – Habitat patch connections

• FunConn -- Habitat patch connections

• Circuitscape – Habitat patch connections

• Community Viz – Human impact

• Urban Sim – Human impact

Some Conservation Strategy Models

• Miradi – project management software

• Natureserve Vista -- project management

software

• C-Plan -- project management software

• Communitiy Viz – community visualization

• UrbanSim – urban development

visualization

Some Other Conservation Models

• Climate Wizard – climate change

• Human Footprint – human impact

• GAP – protection status

• PAD-US – US protected areas

• NAPAD – North America protected areas

• WDPA – World protected areas

What You Need To Plan

• Project Goals and Objectives

• What data exists and how it can be used

• The status of available data and maps

• What experts are needed (team to assemble)

• What models apply to your objectives

• How to incorporate stake holder input

• How to fund the project

• How to proceed

What You Need To Know

• What model(s) to use

• What data to use (tabular and map)

• Technical knowledge for data formats to use

• Technical knowledge for parameters

• Technical knowledge for rules

• What assumption are made

• How to use GIS

• How to run the model

• How to evaluate results and apply to decisions

What You Need To Do

• Assemble spatial data

• Build map layers

• Define Parameters

• Establish rules

• Run simulations

• Analyze results

• Decide objectives & procedures

Alternative Entry Levels

• Out source (contract) the whole project

• Teach yourself and staff to do it

• Hire the technical staff to do it

• Cooperate with a private firm

• Cooperate with a University

• Sub parts of the project

Tools & Planning Planners & Conservation

Biologists APA National – Los Angeles –

4/17/12

Planners

• Know tools exist

• Who to call

• How tools help planning process

Planning process ideally suited to building

• Successful conservation programs

• Sustainable communities

Lasting Value:

Open Space Planning &

Preservation Successes

Celebrate sustainable communities

Promote balancing development with preservation

Reconfirm effectiveness of planning process

• Overcoming inertia, indecision and inaction

• Generating motivation, deliberation, innovation and collaboration

Motivation Planning invites public to

support preservation of significant resources for multiple benefits

• Economy – Lancaster County, PA

• Habitat – Collier County, FL

• Green infrastructure – Suffolk County, NY

• Local food security – Montgomery County, MD

• Smart growth promotion – Pima County, AZ

Motivation: Stewardship

Boulder, Colorado

• 1908 Olmstead Plan

• 1910: Flagstaff Mountain

• 1967: first voter-approved

open space sales tax

• Now 10 programs

• 134,000+ acres ( 324,000

total, 2/3 of county)

1908 Plan: “Priceless setting”

… “Don’t spoil it!”

Today’s tools can increase

motivation

Motivation:

Trends &

Projections

Identify threats

Marin County, CA

• 1971 Plan “Can the Last

Place Last?”

• 1972 voters approved Marin

County Open Space District

• County now 50% preserved

Chester County, PA

• Plan: losing 5,000 acres/year

• Plan goal: preserve 5,000

acres/year

Conservation planning tools can

• Project habitat/species loss

• Visualize outcomes

Deliberation: What to Preserve

Plans

• Identify funding limits

• Strategize priorities

• Meet multiple goals

Santa Fe County, NM: protect land combining historic, environmental and cultural significance

Santa Cruz, CA: farms, parks and open space also serve as greenbelts

Travis County, TX: Critical habitat and watershed protection zones often overlap

Innovation Plans identify

• Funding shortfalls

• Creative solutions

Lasting Value communities pioneered UGBs, open space taxes, PDR & TDR

Employ multiple strategies often synergistically

King County, WA

• Preserve land with dedicated property tax

• Bank and sell TDRs

• Plow proceeds back into future acquisitions

Innovation:

Combining Tools Palm Beach County, FL

$100-million bond bought

34,000 acres

County banked resulting

9,000 TDRs, creating

ongoing funding source

TDR sales can yield $10

million/year

Proceeds used for

expansion and

maintenance of Natural

Area Preserve System

Collaboration

Albuquerque/Bernalillo

County, AZ

• Partnered with National

Park Service (Petroglyph

National Monument)

• National Forest Service

(Cibola NF)

• New Mexico State Parks

Takeaway

APA’s Mission Statement:

“Help create communities of lasting value.”

Plan for preservation with as much zeal as you plan for development

Not easy: indifference, indecision, inaction

Lasting Value: keep the faith

• Success is possible

• Planning process itself generates necessary motivation, deliberation, innovation and collaboration

Increase success rate by learning about new tools and how they improve planning process

Rob Baldwin

School of Agricultural, Forest, and Environmental Sciences

Clemson University

4/12/2012 National Planning Conference 1

Biodiversity and conservation Biological diversity (i.e., biodiversity) is the diversity of

life on earth, including species, genes and ecosystems;

Conservation biology integrates principles from multiple scientific disciplines to study the nature and status of biodiversity, with the goal of maintaining or restoring species, their habitats, and ecosystems;

Reserve design, or theory about how to best identify and design protected areas for biodiversity, has been a major focus of conservation biology.


Goal of landscape-scale conservation planning is to represent diversity of species, habitats, ecosystems in an integrated system of reserves;

The reserve system should be large and connected enough to support current populations and communities and restore extirpated ones, while allowing for ongoing ecological and evolutionary change.

Conservation planning


Landscape-scale conservation planning transcends single-species approaches to conservation, as well as local-scale or purely opportunistic approaches.

Transcending the local

5/3/2012 4 National Planning Conference

Trombulak et al. (2008)

Three tasks of conservation planning

Comprehensive Representation:

Species and populations in new reserves complement those in existing reserves

Connectivity:

Facilitates gene flow, migration, and range shifts

Threat Assessment:

Assess current and forecasted threats to conservation targets


Goal of systematic conservation planning is to prioritize areas for conservation, relative to other areas in the same region

Prioritization


Margules and Pressey (2000)

Evaluating trade-offs Ultimately, land supply and budgets are limited;

Maximize biological benefit per land cost, while also minimizing the threat of future land-use conversion.


Newburn, Reed et al. (2005)

Modeling connectivity Connectivity is a measure of an organism’s ability to

move among suitable patches of habitat;

Approaches range from linkage designs to enhancing the overall permeability of the matrix.


CorridorDesign.com (2012) Theobald et al. (2012)

Some modeling tools


MARXAN

Representation in core reserves

CorridorDesigner, CircuitScape

Design linkages among reserves

Human Footprint

Model current and future land-use change

NatureServe Vista

Decision support system to integrate conservation and land-use planning

Data

Continuously available at a sufficient grain size and extent to be meaningful at ecoregional scales;

Software

Capable of integrating data in models that represent individual, population, and landscape variability; modelers who are also biologists;

Organized participation

Stakeholders who know about “the local” and envision the “big picture”

5/3/2012 10

Important challenges

National Planning Conference

5/3/2012 11

Clevenger et al. (2009), Western Transportation Institute

National Planning Conference

Model validation

Websites MARXAN: http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan/

Corridor Designer: http://corridordesign.org/

CircuitScape: http://www.circuitscape.org/

Human Footprint: http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint/

NatureServe Vista: http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/vista/overview.jsp

Books Groves, C. 2003. Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: a Practitioner’s Guide to Planning

for Biodiversity. Island Press.

Hilty, J.A., W.Z. Lidicker and A.M. Merenlender, eds. 2006. Corridor Ecology: the Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press

Margules, C. and S. Sarkar. 2007. Systematic Conservation Planning. Cambridge University Press.

Moilanen, A., K.A. Wilson, H.P. Possingham, eds 2009. Spatial Conservation Priorization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford University Press.

Trombulak, S. and R. Baldwin, eds. 2010. Landscape-scale Conservation Planning. Springer.


Selected resources

http://www.uq.edu.au/marxan/

http://corridordesign.org/

http://www.circuitscape.org/Circuitscape/Welcome.html

http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint/

http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/vista/overview.jsp

Planners and Conservation

Biologists

APA Conference, Los Angeles

April 17, 2012

Forests on the Edge

Guidelines and incentives for conservation design in local development regulations

SARAH E. REED1,2, HEIDI E. KRETSER1, JODI A. HILTY1 and DAVID M. THEOBALD2

1North America Program

Wildlife Conservation Society

2Department of Fish, Wildlife & Conservation Biology Colorado State University

2012 National Planning Conference April 17, 2012

© T. Crawford © J. Burrell (WCS)

Conservation Development (CD) is an approach to the design, construction, and management of a development that protects or restores the property’s natural resources

and clusters housing on a subset of the site.

CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: Rate of adoption varies by state

64%

52%

38%

29% 27%23% 22% 21%

18% 17%

6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

WA CO UT MT AZ ID WY CA NV OR NM

17%

49%

6%

16%

0%

20%

40%

60%

NY VT NH ME

CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: Rate of adoption varies by state

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1951-

1960

1961-

1970

1971-

1980

1981-

1990

1991-

2000

2001-

2010

Nu

mb

er o

f co

un

tie

s, t

ow

ns

Western counties

Northeastern towns

CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES: Increasing rate of adoption over time

*Western US counties

REVIEW OF LOCAL CD ORDINANCES: Key dimensions of conservation design


• Density bonus provided as incentive for participation: 53%




• Mean increase in development yield permitted as bonus: 71%





• Mean percent of site area required to be protected: 58%






• Site analysis for ecological features required: 13%







• Site analysis for ecological features required prior to

developed area design: 5%







• Site analysis for ecological features required prior to developed area design: 5%

• Design of conservation area requires consultation with an

ecological expert or plan: 10%


REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN CD ORDINANCES: Northeastern towns vs. Western counties

COMPARISON NORTHEAST WEST

Percent of local jursdictions with a CD

ordinance

19% < 32%

Mean year of adoption 1996 < 2002

Percent of CD ordinances adopted in

jurisdictions with a planning department

27% < 93%

Mean percent of site area required to be

protected

42% < 58%

Mean increase in development yield

permitted as a bonus

31% < 71%

AIR PHOTO NA

CONCLUSIONS:

1) Opportunities for land and biodiversity conservation

Adoption of CD ordinances is increasing rapidly

2) Need for scientific expertise Conservation design and consultation requirements are relatively

weak, with potential for development intensification

3) Next steps How are CD ordinances implemented in practice?

SCREENSHOT OF SoGES GCRT WEBSITE

cd.colostate.edu

CD Learning Network

cd.colostate.edu

AIR PHOTO NA

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: FUNDING:

Center for Collaborative Conservation

Robert & Patricia Switzer Foundation

School of Global Environmental Sustainability

Society for Conservation Biology

USDA Forest Service

RESEARCH ASSISTANCE:

David Mueller

Elizabeth Hammen

Lindsay Ex

Sarah Maisonneuve

Steve Chignell

ADVISORY BOARD:

Ed McMahon

Heidi Kretser

Jeff Milder

Martin Zeller

Peter Pollock

Steven Kellerberg

SoGES GCRT:

Liba Pejchar

Chris Hannum

David Theobald

DeAna Nasseth

George Wallace

Josie Plaut

Kelly Spokus

Miranda Mockrin

Patrick Bixler

Richard Knight

Stephanie Gripne

Steve Laposa

Date post:	02-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Conservation Planning Tools Assessmentmedia2.planning.org/APA2012/Presentations/S610... ·...

Documents