More Like this

1. Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity

   https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100356  

   Kpienbaareh, Daniel ; Bezner Kerr, Rachel ; Luginaah, Isaac ; Wang, Jinfei ; Lupafya, Esther ; Dakishoni, Laifolo ; Shumba, Lizzie ( October 2020 , Land)

   null (Ed.)

   Amid climate change, biodiversity loss and food insecurity, there is the growing need to draw synergies between micro-scale environmental processes and practices, and macro-level ecosystem dynamics to facilitate conservation decision-making. Adopting this synergistic approach can improve crop yields and profitability more sustainably, enhance livelihoods and mitigate climate change. Using spatially explicit data generated through a public participatory geographic information system methodology (n = 37), complemented by spatial analysis, interviews (n = 68) and focus group discussions (n = 4), we explored the synergies between participatory farmer-to-farmer agroecology knowledge sharing, farm-level decisions and their links with macro-level prioritization of conservation strategies. We mapped farm conditions and ecosystem services (ES) of two village areas with varying knowledge systems about farming. Results of the farm-level analysis revealed variations in spatial perception among farmers, differences in understanding the dynamics of crop growth and varying priorities for extension services based on agroecological knowledge. The ES use pattern analysis revealed hotspots in the mapped ES indicators with similarities in both village areas. Despite the similarities in ES use, priorities for biodiversity conservation align with farmers’ understanding of farm processes and practices. Farmers with training in agroecology prioritized strategies that are ecologically friendly while farmers with no agroecology training prioritized the use of strict regulations. Importantly, the results show that agroecology can potentially contribute to biodiversity conservation and food security, with climate change mitigation co-benefits. The findings generally contribute to debates on land sparing and land sharing conservation strategies and advance social learning theory as it pertains to acquiring agroecological knowledge for improved yield and a sustainable environment. 

   more » « less
2. Projected losses of ecosystem services in the US disproportionately affect non-white and lower-income populations

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23905-3  

   Gourevitch, Jesse D. ; Alonso-Rodríguez, Aura M. ; Aristizábal, Natalia ; de Wit, Luz A. ; Kinnebrew, Eva ; Littlefield, Caitlin E. ; Moore, Maya ; Nicholson, Charles C. ; Schwartz, Aaron J. ; Ricketts, Taylor H. ( June 2021 , Nature Communications)

   Addressing how ecosystem services (ES) are distributed among groups of people is critical for making conservation and environmental policy-making more equitable. Here, we evaluate the distribution and equity of changes in ES benefits across demographic and socioeconomic groups in the United States (US) between 2020 and 2100. Specifically, we use land cover and population projections to model potential shifts in the supply, demand, and benefits of the following ES: provision of clean air, protection against a vector-borne disease (West Nile virus), and crop pollination. Across the US, changes in ES benefits are unevenly distributed among socioeconomic and demographic groups and among rural and urban communities, but are relatively uniform across geographic regions. In general, non-white, lower-income, and urban populations disproportionately bear the burden of declines in ES benefits. This is largely driven by the conversion of forests and wetlands to cropland and urban land cover in counties where these populations are expected to grow. In these locations, targeted land use policy interventions are required to avoid exacerbating inequalities already present in the US.

    

   more » « less
3. Improving inferences about private land conservation by accounting for incomplete reporting

   https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13673  

   Williamson, Matthew A. ; Dickson, Brett G. ; Hooten, Mevin B. ; Graves, Rose A. ; Lubell, Mark N. ; Schwartz, Mark W. ( March 2021 , Conservation Biology)

   Private lands provide key habitat for imperiled species and are core components of function protectected area networks; yet, their incorporation into national and regional conservation planning has been challenging. Identifying locations where private landowners are likely to participate in conservation initiatives can help avoid conflict and clarify trade‐offs between ecological benefits and sociopolitical costs. Empirical, spatially explicit assessment of the factors associated with conservation on private land is an emerging tool for identifying future conservation opportunities. However, most data on private land conservation are voluntarily reported and incomplete, which complicates these assessments. We used a novel application of occupancy models to analyze the occurrence of conservation easements on private land. We compared multiple formulations of occupancy models with a logistic regression model to predict the locations of conservation easements based on a spatially explicit social–ecological systems framework. We combined a simulation experiment with a case study of easement data in Idaho and Montana (United States) to illustrate the utility of the occupancy framework for modeling conservation on private land. Occupancy models that explicitly accounted for variation in reporting produced estimates of predictors that were substantially less biased than estimates produced by logistic regression under all simulated conditions. Occupancy models produced estimates for the 6 predictors we evaluated in our case study that were larger in magnitude, but less certain than those produced by logistic regression. These results suggest that occupancy models result in qualitatively different inferences regarding the effects of predictors on conservation easement occurrence than logistic regression and highlight the importance of integrating variable and incomplete reporting of participation in empirical analysis of conservation initiatives. Failure to do so can lead to emphasizing the wrong social, institutional, and environmental factors that enable conservation and underestimating conservation opportunities in landscapes where social norms or institutional constraints inhibit reporting.

    

   more » « less
4. Grassland and managed grazing policy review

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1010441  

   Rissman, Adena R. ; Fochesatto, Ana ; Lowe, Erin B. ; Lu, Yu ; Hirsch, Regina M. ; Jackson, Randall D. ( March 2023 , Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems)

   Perennial grasslands, including prairie and pasture, have declined with tremendous environmental and social costs. This decline reflects unequal policy support for grasslands and managed grazing compared to row crops. To create a resource for community partners and decision-makers, we reviewed and analyzed the policy tools and implementation capacity that supports and constrains grasslands and managed grazing in the U.S. Upper Midwest. Risk reduction subsidies for corn and soybeans far outpace the support for pasture. Some states lost their statewide grazing specialist when the federal Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative lapsed. The United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service support for lands with prescribed grazing practices declined after 2005 but remained relatively steady 2010–2020. These results reveal the policy disadvantage for grasslands and managed grazing in comparison with row crop agriculture for milk and meat production. Grassland and grazing policies have an important nexus with water quality, biodiversity, carbon and outdoor recreation policy. Socially just transitions to well-managed, grazed grasslands require equity-oriented interventions that support community needs. We synthesized recommendations for national and state policy that farmers and other grazing professionals assert would support perennial grasslands and grazing, including changes in insurance, conservation programs, supply chains, land access, and fair labor. These policies would provide critical support for grass-based agriculture and prairies that we hope will help build soil, retain nutrients, reduce flooding and enhance biodiversity while providing healthy food, jobs, and communities. 

   more » « less
5. Wildlife impacts and vulnerable livelihoods in a transfrontier conservation landscape

   https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13480  

   Salerno, Jonathan ; Bailey, Karen ; Gaughan, Andrea E. ; Stevens, Forrest R. ; Hilton, Tom ; Cassidy, Lin ; Drake, Michael D. ; Pricope, Narcisa G. ; Hartter, Joel ( May 2020 , Conservation Biology)

   Interactions between humans and wildlife resulting in negative impacts are among the most pressing conservation challenges globally. In regions of smallholder livestock and crop production, interactions with wildlife can compromise human well‐being and motivate negative sentiment and retaliation toward wildlife, undermining conservation goals. Although impacts may be unavoidable when human and wildlife land use overlap, scant large‐scale human data exist quantifying the direct costs of wildlife to livelihoods. In a landscape of global importance for wildlife conservation in southern Africa, we quantified costs for people living with wildlife through a fundamental measure of human well‐being, food security, and we tested whether existing livelihood strategies buffer certain households against crop depredation by wildlife, predominantly elephants. To do this, we estimated Bayesian multilevel statistical models based on multicounty household data (n= 711) and interpreted model results in the context of spatial data from participatory land‐use mapping. Reported crop depredation by wildlife was widespread. Over half of the sample households were affected and household food security was reduced significantly (odds ratio 0.37 [0.22, 0.63]). The most food insecure households relied on gathered food sources and welfare programs. In the event of crop depredation by wildlife, these 2 livelihood sources buffered or reduced harmful effects of depredation. The presence of buffering strategies suggests a targeted compensation strategy could benefit the region's most vulnerable people. Such strategies should be combined with dynamic and spatially explicit land‐use planning that may reduce the frequency of negative human–wildlife impacts. Quantifying and mitigating the human costs from wildlife are necessary steps in working toward human–wildlife coexistence.

    

   more » « less