Current and Future Land Use around a Nationwide Protected Area Network

Abstract

Land-use change around protected areas can reduce their effective size and limit their ability to conserve biodiversity because land-use change alters ecological processes and the ability of organisms to move freely among protected areas. The goal of our analysis was to inform conservation planning efforts for a nationwide network of protected lands by predicting future land use change. We evaluated the relative effect of three economic policy scenarios on land use surrounding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wildlife Refuges. We predicted changes for three land-use classes (forest/range, crop/pasture, and urban) by 2051. Our results showed an increase in forest/range lands (by 1.9% to 4.7% depending on the scenario), a decrease in crop/pasture between 15.2% and 23.1%, and a substantial increase in urban land use between 28.5% and 57.0%. The magnitude of land-use change differed strongly among different USFWS administrative regions, with the most change in the Upper Midwestern US (approximately 30%), and the Southeastern and Northeastern US (25%), and the rest of the U.S. between 15 and 20%. Among our scenarios, changes in land use were similar, with the exception of our “restricted-urban-growth” scenario, which resulted in noticeably different rates of change. This demonstrates that it will likely be difficult to influence land-use change patterns with national policies and that understanding regional land-use dynamics is critical for effective management and planning of protected lands throughout the U.S.

Solar energy development impacts on land cover change and protected areas

“…Last, the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, seeks to reduce adverse proximity impacts by augmenting protected areas with private land restoration, targeting land within a maximum distance of 75 km from existing protected areas. Thus, our results confirm USSE development in California engenders important proximity impacts, for example, encompassing all three spatial scales from Hamilton et al (17) and decreasing land available for US Fish and Wildlife Service partner restoration programs. Industrial sectors-including energy and agriculture-are increasingly responsible for decisions affecting biodiversity.…”

“…Proximity impacts result from the fragmentation and degradation of land near and between protected areas, reducing ecological flows of energy, organisms, and goods (16)(17)(18)(19)(20). In a study of 57 …”

“…US protected areas, Hansen et al (16) found such zones extended an average of 18 times (in area) beyond the park area (e.g., Mojave National Preserve, three times protected area, i.e., ∼30 km radially beyond preserve boundary). Additionally, Hamilton et al (17) used distances of 5, 25, and 75 km from all US protected area boundaries to represent three spatial scales (i.e., buffers) of proximity impacts owing to US land cover and land use change. Last, the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, seeks to reduce adverse proximity impacts by augmenting protected areas with private land restoration, targeting land within a maximum distance of 75 km from existing protected areas.…”

“…Recent studies have underscored the role that proximity of threats to protected areas plays in meeting conservation goals (16)(17)(18)(19)(20). Protected areas may preclude habitat loss within boundaries; however, a prevailing cause of degradation within protected areas is land use and land cover change in surrounding areas.…”

Untitled

“…Tal es el caso de la problemática de la defo-Problemática territorial y conservación de la biodiversidad en espacios protegidos de Argentina restación en el Amazonas y sus efectos sobre los espacios protegidos en Brasil (Barber, Cochrane, Souza, & Laurance, 2014); los efectos sobre los espacios protegidos a consecuencia de los cambios de uso del suelo en el Amazonas peruano y en la península de Yucatán en México (García-Frapolli, Ayala-Orozco, Bonilla-Moheno, Espadas-Manrique, & Ramos-Fernández, 2007;Miranda, Corral, Blackman, Asner, & Lima, 2016); el análisis de las consecuencias de la ocupación humana en espacios protegidos de Perú (Dourojeanni, 2014); o el análisis de los efectos negativos que los actuales y futuros cambios de uso del suelo podrían tener en torno a los espacios protegidos en Estados Unidos (Hamilton et al, 2013).…”