Conservation versus cluster subdivisions and implications for habitat connectivity

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 30-42

  Freeman, Robert C ^a   Bell, Kathleen P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Conservation development; Conservation subdivision; Conservation zoning; Habitat connectivity; Land use planning; Landscape permeability

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; LAND USE; MECHANICAL PERMEABILITY;

CONNECTED NETWORKS; CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT; CONSERVATION SUBDIVISIONS; HABITAT CONNECTIVITY; LAND USE PLANNING; PERMEABILITY MODEL; POTENTIAL OUTCOMES; SPACE REQUIREMENTS;

ZONING;

BREEDING SITE; CONNECTIVITY; FROG; HABITAT CONSERVATION; LAND USE PLANNING; OPEN SPACE; RESIDENTIAL LOCATION; TRADE-OFF; URBAN POLICY; WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT;

ANURA; RANA SYLVATICA;

EID: 79953720254     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.12.019     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Adriaensen F., Chardon J.P., De Blust G., Swinnen E., Villalba S., Gulinck H., Matthysen E. The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model. Landscape Urban Plan. 2003, 64:233-247.
2. Arendt R. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Practical Guide for Creating Open Space Networks 1996, Island Press, Washington, DC.
3. Arendt R. Growing Greener: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances 1999, Island Press, Washington, DC.
4. Arendt R. Linked landscapes: Creating greenway corridors through conservation subdivision design strategies in the northeastern and central United States. Landscape Urban Plan. 2004, 68:241-269.
5. Baldwin R.F., Calhoun A.J.K., de Maynadier P.G. Conservation planning for amphibian species with complex habitat requirements: A case study using movements and habitat selection of the wood frog Ranasylvatica. J. Herpetol. 2006, 40(4):443-454.
6. Berven K.A., Grudzien T.A. Dispersal in the Wood Frog (Ranasylvatica): Implications for genetic population structure. Evolution 1990, 44(8):2047-2056.
7. Cho S., Newman D.H. Spatial analysis of rural land development. Forest Policy and Economics 2005, 7:732-744.
8. Cho S., Omitaomu O.A., Poudyal N.C., Eastwood D.B. The impact of an urban growth boundary on land development in Knox County, Tennessee: A comparison of two-stage probit least squares and multilayer neural network models. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 2007, 39(3):701-717.
9. Clevenger A.P., Wierzchowski J., Chruszcz B., Gunson K. GIS-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conservation Biology 2002, 16:503-514.
10. ESRI ArcGIS v. 9.2. Redlands, California Environmental Systems 2006, Research Institute, Inc.
11. Fleury S.A., Mock P.J., O'Leary J.F. Is the California gnatcatcher a good umbrella species?. Western Birds 1998, 29:453-467.
12. Freeman, R.C., 2010. Land use planning and vernal pool conservation in a southern Maine town. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Maine, 149 pp.
13. Gonzales E.K., Gergel S.E. Testing assumptions of cost surface analysis-a tool for invasive species management. Landscape Ecol. 2007, 22:1155-1168.
14. Hansen A.J., Rasker R., Maxwell B., Rotella J.J., Johnson J.D., Parmenter A.W., Langner U., Cohen W.B., Lawrence R.L., Kraska M.P.V. Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the New West. Bioscience 2002, 52:151-162.
15. Hansen A.J., Knight R.L., Marzluff J., Powell S., Brown K., Hernandez P., Jones K. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: patterns, mechanisms, research needs. Ecol. Appl. 2005, 15:1893-1905.
16. Hepinstall, J.A., Sader, S.A., Krohn, W.B., Boone, R.B., Bartlett, R.I., 1999. Development and testing of a vegetation and land cover map of Maine. Technical Bulletin 173. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station, University of Maine, 104 pp.
17. Hostetler M., Drake D. Conservation subdivisions: A wildlife perspective. Landscape Urban Plan. 2009, 90:95-101.
18. Hunter M.L., Calhoun A.J.K., McCollough M.M. Maine Amphibians and Reptiles 1999, University of Maine Press, Orono, ME.
19. Joly P., Morand C., Cohas A. Habitat fragmentation and amphibian conservation: Building a tool for assessing landscape matrix connectivity. Comptes Rendus Biol. 2003, 236:S132-S139.
20. Knaapen J.P., Scheffer M., Harms B. Estimating habitat isolation in landscape planning. Land Urban Plan. 1992, 23:1-16.
21. Lenth B.A., Knight R.L., Gilgert W.C. Conservation value of clustered housing developments. Conserv. Biol. 2006, 20(5):1445-1456.
22. Lewis D.J., Provencher B., Butsic V. The dynamic effects of open-space conservation policies on residential development density. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2009, 57:239-252.
23. Lichtenberg E., Hardie I. Open space, forest conservation, and urban sprawl in Maryland suburban subdivisions. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 2007, 89(5):1198-1204.
24. Lichtenberg E., Tra C., Hardie I. Land use regulation and the provision of open space in suburban residential subdivisions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2007, 54:199-213.
25. Mahaney W.S., Klemens M.W. Vernal pool conservation policy: The federal, state and local context. Science and Conservation of Vernal Pools in Northeastern North America 2007, CRC Press, Boston, MA. A. Calhoun, P.G. DeMaynadier (Eds.).
26. Marin M.C. Impacts of urban growth boundary versus exclusive farm use zoning on agricultural land uses. Urban Aff. Rev. 2007, 43(2):199-220.
27. Marsh D.M., Trenham P.C. Metapopulation dynamics and amphibian conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2001, 15(1):40-49.
28. McConnell V., Kopits E., Walls M. Usingmarkets for land preservation: Results of a TDR program. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 2006, 49(5):631-651.
29. McGarigal, K., Cushman, S.A., Neel, M.C., Ene, E., 2002. FRAGSTATS: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for Categorical Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at: http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html.
30. MEGIS, 2007. Data Catalog. Augusta, ME. Maine Office of GIS. http://megis.maine.gov/catalog/.
31. Milder J.C. A framework for understanding conservation development and its ecological implications. Bioscience 2007, 57:757-768.
32. Mohamed R. The economics of conservation subdivisions: Price premiums, improvement costs, and absorption rates. Urban Aff. Rev. 2006, 41(3):376-399.
33. Morgan R.P., Cushman S.E. Urbanization effects on stream fish assemblages in Maryland, USA. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2005, 24:643-655.
34. Neel M.C., McGarigal K., Cushman S.A. Behavior of class-level landscape metrics across gradients of class aggregation and area. Landscape Ecol. 2004, 19:435-455.
35. Odell E.A., Knight R.L. Songbird and medium sized mammal communities associated with exurban development in Pitkin County Colorado. Cons. Biol. 2001, 1:1-8.
36. Odell E.A., Theobald D.M., Knight R.L. A songbird's case for clustered housing developments. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2003, 69:1-15.
37. Pejchar L., Morgan P.M., Caldwell M.R., Palmer C., Daily G.C. Evaluating the potential for conservation development: Biophysical, economic, and institutional perspectives. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21(1):69-78.
38. Perlman D., Milder J. Practical Ecology 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC.
39. Petranka J.W., Smith C.K., Scott A.F. Identifying the minimal demographic unit for monitoring pond-breeding amphibians. Ecol. Appl. 2004, 14:1065-1078.
40. Petranka J.W., Holbrook C.T. Wetland restoration for amphibians: Should local sites be designed to support metapopulations or patchy populations?. Restor. Ecol. 2006, 14(3):404-411.
41. Prevedello J.A., Vieira M.V. Does the matrix matter? A quantitative review of the evidence. Biodivers. Conserv. 2010, 19:1205-1223.
42. R Development Core Team, 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available at: http://www.r-project.org/.
43. Radeloff V.C., Hammer R.B., Steward S.I. Rural and suburban sprawl in the U.S Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19:793-805.
44. Regosin J.V., Windmiller B.S., Reed J.M. Terrestrial habitat use and winter densities of the Wood Frog (Ranasylvatica). J. Herpetol. 2003, 37:390-394.
45. Ricketts T.H. The matrix matters: effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am. Nat. 2001, 158:87-99.
46. Roberge J., Angelstam P. Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18:76-85.
47. Semlitsch R.D. Principles for management of aquatic-breeding amphibians. J. Wildlife Manage. 2000, 64(3):615-631.
48. Singleton P.H., Gaines W.L., Lehmkuhl J.F. Landscape permeability for grizzly bear movements in Washington and southwestern British Columbia. Ursus 2004, 15(1):90-103.
49. Smith M., Palmer M., Brenner A. Landcover development: State/federal collaboration improves data quality, saves money. Earth Imaging J. 2006, 3:16-19.
50. Theobald D.M., Miller J.R., Hobbs N.T. Estimating the cumulative effects of development on wildlife habitat. Landscape Urban Plan. 1997, 39:25-36.
51. TPL (Trust for Public Land), 2008. Land Vote 2008 Report. San Francisco. Retrieved Oct. 30, 2009 from http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm%3Fcontent_item_id=12010%26folder_id=2386/.
52. Van Langevelde F. Scale of habitat connectivity and colonization in fragmented nuthatch populations. Ecography 2000, 23:614-622.
53. Vasconcelos D., Calhoun A.J.K. Movements patterns of adult and juvenile Ranasylvatica (Le Conte) and Ambystomamaculatum (Shaw) in three restored seasonal pools in Maine. J. Herpetol. 2004, 38(4):551-561.
54. VDACS, 2005. A model purchase of development rights (PDR) program for Virginia. Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Farmland Preservation Task Force. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/preservation/pdf/pdfprogram.pdf.
55. WGA, TPL, NCBA, 2001. Purchase of development rights: conserving lands, preserving western livelihoods. Western Governors' Association, Trust for Public Land, and National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Retrieved October 30, 2009 from http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/purchase_of_development_rights_publication.pdf.
56. Xian G., Crane M., Su J. An analysis of urban development and its environmental impact on the Tampa Bay watershed. J. Environ. Manage. 2007, 85:965-976.