Literature DB >> 33586052

Citizens of local jurisdictions enhance plant community preservation through ballot initiatives and voter-driven conservation efforts.

Benjamin J Crain1,2, Chad Stachowiak3,4, Patrick F McKenzie5, James N Sanchirico6,7, Kailin Kroetz7,8, Paul R Armsworth3.   

Abstract

Open space areas protected by local communities may augment larger scale preservation efforts and may offer overlooked benefits to biodiversity conservation provided they are in suitable ecological condition. We examine protected areas established by local communities through ballot initiatives, a form of direct democracy, in California, USA. We compare ecological conditions of wooded habitats on local ballot protected sites and on sites protected by a state-level conservation agency. Collectively, we found few differences in ecological conditions on each protected area type. Ballot sites had greater invasive understory cover and larger trees. Community dissimilarity patterns suggested ballot sites protect a complementary set of tree species to those on state lands. Overall, geographic characteristics influenced onsite conditions more than details of how sites were protected. Thus, community-driven conservation efforts contribute to protected area networks by augmenting protection of some species while providing at least some protection to others that might otherwise be missed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ballot propositions; Conservation measures; Grassroots; Nature reserves; Park systems; Protected area networks

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33586052      PMCID: PMC8068745          DOI: 10.1007/s13280-020-01469-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ambio        ISSN: 0044-7447            Impact factor:   6.943


  10 in total

1.  Extinction rates under nonrandom patterns of habitat loss.

Authors:  Eric W Seabloom; Andy P Dobson; David M Stoms
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-08-12       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Conservation planning with multiple organizations and objectives.

Authors:  Michael Bode; Will Probert; Will R Turner; Kerrie A Wilson; Oscar Venter
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 6.560

3.  Community-based conservation in a globalized world.

Authors:  Fikret Berkes
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-09-19       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Conserving connectivity: some lessons from mountain lions in southern California.

Authors:  Scott A Morrison; Walter M Boyce
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2008-10-20       Impact factor: 6.560

5.  Benefits of the ballot box for species conservation.

Authors:  Kailin Kroetz; James N Sanchirico; Paul R Armsworth; H Spencer Banzhaf
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2013-12-06       Impact factor: 9.492

6.  Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation.

Authors:  C Murcia
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2000-08-01       Impact factor: 17.712

7.  The performance and potential of protected areas.

Authors:  James E M Watson; Nigel Dudley; Daniel B Segan; Marc Hockings
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Using counterfactuals to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of controlling biological invasions.

Authors:  Matthew M McConnachie; Brian W van Wilgen; Paul J Ferraro; Aurelia T Forsyth; David M Richardson; Mirijam Gaertner; Richard M Cowling
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.657

9.  Representation of ecological systems within the protected areas network of the Continental United States.

Authors:  Jocelyn L Aycrigg; Anne Davidson; Leona K Svancara; Kevin J Gergely; Alexa McKerrow; J Michael Scott
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  High and far: biases in the location of protected areas.

Authors:  Lucas N Joppa; Alexander Pfaff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-12-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.