DSpace Repository

Spatial and temporal patterns of public and private land protection within the Blue Ridge and Piedmont ecoregions of the eastern US

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Lacher, Iara en
dc.contributor.author Akre, Thomas en
dc.contributor.author Mcshea, William J. en
dc.contributor.author Fergus, Craig en
dc.date.accessioned 2019-05-03T02:03:36Z
dc.date.available 2019-05-03T02:03:36Z
dc.date.issued 2019
dc.identifier.citation Lacher, Iara, Akre, Thomas, Mcshea, William J., and Fergus, Craig. 2019. "Spatial and temporal patterns of public and private land protection within the Blue Ridge and Piedmont ecoregions of the eastern US." <em>Landscape and Urban Planning</em>. 186:91&ndash;102. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.008">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.008</a> en
dc.identifier.issn 0169-2046
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/10088/96524
dc.description.abstract Protected lands are an established method for conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Moreover, agencies and organizations are increasingly looking to private lands as places for new protected lands establishment. However, the effectiveness of protected lands in guarding against the loss of species or services can vary based on their coverage of habitat and species, management strategy, and their size and configuration across the landscape. We compare protected lands patches between two adjacent ecoregions, the public lands centric Blue Ridge and the private land dominated Piedmont, using estimates of land cover, management practices, and landscape configuration as a proxy for their relative contribution towards the long-term conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. We conducted a hotspot analysis to evaluate geographic changes in spatial clustering of protected lands establishment between the years 1985 and 2015. In addition, we evaluated climate resiliency of protected lands patches using metrics developed by Anderson et al. (2016). We found that, compared to public lands, private protected lands contain larger amounts of agriculture than forest, allow for more utilitarian use than public lands, and are less resilient to climatic change. Furthermore, although total area of private protected lands increased since 1985, they are smaller and more disconnected, contributing less to overall connectivity of the protected lands network. To improve upon past efforts, we must improve management accounting and practice and prioritize land for protection that improves coverage, network connectivity, and climate resilience. en
dc.relation.ispartof Landscape and Urban Planning en
dc.title Spatial and temporal patterns of public and private land protection within the Blue Ridge and Piedmont ecoregions of the eastern US en
dc.type Journal Article en
dc.identifier.srbnumber 151036
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.02.008
rft.jtitle Landscape and Urban Planning
rft.volume 186
rft.spage 91
rft.epage 102
dc.description.SIUnit NZP en
dc.description.SIUnit Peer-reviewed en
dc.citation.spage 91
dc.citation.epage 102


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Browse

My Account