Appreciation, Use, and Management of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in California’s Working Landscapes

Abstract

"Working landscapes" is the concept of fostering effective ecosystem stewardship and conservation through active human presence and management and integrating livestock, crop, and timber production with the provision of a broad range of ecosystem services at the landscape scale. Based on a statewide survey of private landowners of "working" forests and rangelands in California, we investigated whether owners who are engaged in commercial livestock or timber production appreciate and manage biodiversity and ecosystem services on their land in different ways than purely residential owners. Both specific uses and management practices, as well as underlying attitudes and motivations toward biodiversity and ecosystem services, were assessed. Correlation analysis showed one bundle of ecosystem goods and services (e.g., livestock, timber, crops, and housing) that is supported by some landowners at the community level. Another closely correlated bundle of biodiversity and ecosystem services includes recreation, hunting/fishing, wildlife habitat, and fire prevention. Producers were more likely to ally with the first bundle and residential owners with the second. The survey further confirmed that cultural ecosystem services and quality-of-life aspects are among the primary amenities that motivate forest and rangeland ownership regardless of ownership type. To live near natural beauty was the most important motive for both landowner groups. Producers were much more active in management for habitat improvement and other environmental goals than residential owners. As the number of production-oriented owners decreases, developing strategies for encouraging environment-positive management by all types of landowners is crucial.

Ecosystem Services are Social–ecological Services in a Traditional Pastoral System: the Case of California’s Mediterranean Rangelands

“…Correlation analysis of oak woodland landowner data showed that one bundle of ecosystem goods and services supported by some landowners at the community level included livestock, timber, crops, and places to live, whereas another closely correlated bundle of biodiversity and ecosystem services included recreation, hunting/fishing, wildlife habitat, and fire prevention (Plieninger et al 2012a). Producers were more likely to ally with the first bundle and residential owners with the second, but both groups were amenity and quality of life oriented.…”

“…Producers were more likely to ally with the first bundle and residential owners with the second, but both groups were amenity and quality of life oriented. Producers were much more active in management for habitat improvement and other environmental goals than residential owners (Plieninger et al 2012a). As the number of production-oriented owners decreases, developing strategies for encouraging environmentpositive management by all types of landowners is crucial.…”

Comparison of methods for a landscape-scale assessment of the cultural ecosystem services associated with different habitats

“…For example, Guo et al (2010) found that the dependence of people on cultural services increased as economic development took place, often exceeding that of regulating services. CES have also been found to be important motivators for land management and ownership (Plieninger et al 2012). Increasingly, CES are being embedded in environmental decision-making at a range of geographical and temporal scales, with the aim of achieving ecological sustainability, social justice and economic efficiency in an integrated way (Costanza et al 2017).…”

Marine and Coastal Cultural Ecosystem Services: knowledge gaps and research priorities

“…CES are defined as the "ecosystems' contribution to the nonmaterial benefits (...) that arise from human-ecosystem relationships" (Chan et al 2011), and contribute to individual and collective human wellbeing (Plieninger et al 2013, Russell et al 2013, Breslow et al 2016. CES are often directly experienced and intuitively appreciated (Plieninger et al 2013, Daniel et al 2012, Schaich et al 2010, frequently they are the most valued ecosystem services by stakeholders (Palomo et al 2011, Plieninger et al 2012, Fletcher et al 2014, Oleson et al 2015, Pleasant et al 2014, and are subject to increasing demand and dependence (Guo et al 2010). They are included in the main ecosystem services typologies (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, TEEB 2010, Haines-Young and Potschin 2013.…”