1 Landscape Ecological Modelling And The Effectiveness Of Conservation

2 Policy. Exploring The Impacts Of Land Ownership Patterns

3
4
5ALESSANDRO GIMONA1+ and DAN VAN DER HORST2
61+ Macaulay Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB15 8QH, UK Tel: +44(0)1224 498200
7Fax: +44 (0) 1224 311556 e-mail: a.gimona@macaulay.ac.uk,
8+ corresponding author
92 School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham.
10Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT. Tel: 0121-4145525. Fax: 0121-4145528. e-mail:
11d.vanderhorst@bham.ac.uk
12
13Abstract

14 Conservation ecologists have successfully developed prioritization models

15 that can inform policy makers on where and how to intervene in the

16 landscape in order to conserve biodiversity. However, the dominant mode of

17 policy intervention in many democratic societies is based on voluntary

18 measures. This paper contributes to the debate about the policy relevance of

19 landscape ecological models by examining the potential impact of land-

20 ownership patterns on the delivery of conservation benefits as calculated by

21 an ecological model that prioritises areas for conservation. We show that

22 lack of participation can have a very strong and detrimental impact on the

23 likelihood of conservation benefits being delivered through this scheme. We

24 conclude that in the current policy climate, which favours voluntary

25 measures, more effort must be made to combine landscape ecological

26 models with socio-economic models of land-manager behaviour.

27Key words: land-ownership, landscape ecology, models, conservation policy,

28landscape prioritization

29

30Running head: landscape conservation and land ownership

31Word count 4895

1 1
 1

21. Introduction

4Habitat destruction and fragmentation are an important threat to biodiversity

5worldwide (e.g. MacNelly, 2007; Margules and Pressey 2000, Dinerstein and

6Wikramanaiake, 1993), influencing also population dynamics (Chave and Norden,

72007; Hanski, 1998), genetics (Epps et al., 2007; Millions and Swansons, 2007;

8Peakall and Lindenmayer, 2006; Gaines and Lyons, 1997), and community

9composition (e.g. Polus et al,. 2007, Schieck et al, 2000). Land use change is one of

10the most important factors causing such destruction (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem

11Assessment, 2005; Zollner, 2000; Sheperd and Swihart, 1995;), Habitat structure is

12therefore a very important component of the spatial dynamics of many species (e.g.

13Werner et. al, 2007; Leibold et al., 2004; Bascompte and Sole´, 1996; Durrett and

14Levin, 1994), and efforts to protect biodiversity by increasing the availability of habitat

15and ameliorating its spatial structure are therefore well grounded.

16Landscape ecology has made good progress in the development of models that can

17inform policy makers on where and how to intervene in the landscape in order to

18conserve biodiversity and sustain the provision of ecosystem services (Anderson et

19al., 2007, Gimona and van der Horst, 2007; Quinlan et al, 2003; Norderhaug et. al,

202000 ) .

21The conceptual shift from site-based to landscape-based conservation has changed

22the scale at which theoretical models address the problem of setting conservation

23priorities. Recently there has been a realisation among ecologist that a useful

24approach to set such priorities is based on the integration of both costs and benefits

25of conservation (Westphal et al., 2007; Nicholson et al., 2006; Moilanen and Wintle,

262006; Kazmierski, 2004; Pressey et al., 1997) In particular, the approach proposed

27by Moilanen seem useful in a pragmatic context where many species have to be

28represented over a large area. This approach is more useful for zoning whole

1 2
 1landscapes than earlier approaches based on strict representation targets which

2might result in the exclusion from protection of one of more species (and their

3habitat).

4A parallel conceptual development has concerned the need to deliver single and

5multiple ecosystem services at the landscape scale (e.g. LaMaitre et. al., 2007;

6Norderhaug et. al, 2000; Wiggering et. al., 2006). From this point of view, a

7landscape prioritization strategy based solely on biodiversity might appear necessary

8but not sufficient to meet policy needs, because, in a multi-functional framework,

9costs and benefits should take into account other landscape functions such as

10production, recreation, and visual amenity. However, multifunctional approaches

11might not be as effective in delivering biodiversity benefits as more detailed methods,

12solely focussed on biodiversity, that can be referred to collectively as reserve

13selection algorithms.

14In this paper we explored (i) how effective a rapid multifunctional prioritization, based

15on multi-criteria analysis is, compared to a more in-depth analysis based on the

16zonation approach introduced by Moilanen (e.g. Moilanen et al . 2005), and (ii) the

17interaction between the results of these prioritization models and land-ownership

18patterns.

19In this type of investigations it is important to remember that prioritizations, whether

20multi-functional or not, are theoretical constructs, and unfortunately good science

21does not transfer itself automatically into robust policy. There are a number of

22different reasons why scientific findings may be lost, diluted or misinterpreted in the

23translation to policies on the ground. One important reason is likely to be the attitude

24of land managers to the implementation of spatially explicit ecological planning. This

25paper begins to explore the effect of complex private land-ownership patterns on the

26implementation of a landscape zonation. This is a key issue, because the outcome of

27landscape prioritization models can only be readily used to develop management and

28action plans by policy makers who have the power to fully dictate action on the

1 3
 1ground (so called command-and-control measures). The reality, in advanced

2democracies, is that these powers of unilateral and top-down decision making are

3usually limited to designated protected areas, state land or to spatial planning issues

4of national importance which merit compulsory purchase orders. However, most

5productive land is in private hands, and therefore voluntary policies, based on

6financial incentives (so-called market-based instruments), are the instruments of

7choice for many national governments. The obvious consequence of this situation is

8that conservation projects often cannot be prescriptive.

9This paper explores the effect of accounting for private ownership while building on

10previous work aimed at highlighting landscape areas in which afforestation would

11deliver multiple benefits.

12The objectives of this paper are: (i) to compare a biodiversity prioritization which

13accounts for a pre-existing landscape zonation analysis, based on multiple-criteria,

14with one based solely on priority species and their habitat distribution and (ii) to

15assess to what extent land ownership patterns are likely to influence the feasibility of

16the resulting zonation.

17

182. Methods

19We compared results obtained in previous analyses for an area encompassing most

20of the North East of Scotland (van der Horst and Gimona, 2005; Gimona and van der

21Horst, 2007) with an approach based on the Zonation algorithm (Moilanen et al.,

222005) to obtain an ‘optimal’ priority area of the landscape. We then explored the

23effects land ownership patterns might have on this prioritisation.

24The objective of this new analysis were to

25 • assess the effectiveness (in biodiversity terms) of a previous multi-criteria

26 analysis

27 • to identify the top 10 % priority areas in the landscape

1 4
 1 • assess the propensity of land owners to join an afforestation scheme

42.1 multiple-criteria zonation

5This is a short summary of methods used in the studies cited above. The study area

6for this analysis is the North East of Scotland (UK) and necessarily, coincides with

7that of the studies this paper builds upon. Species selection was based on priorities

8set by policy makers in a Biodiversity Action Plan (http://www.nesbiodiversity.org.uk).

9From this plan, we selected non-marine vertebrates that breed in the study area and

10that are red listed or amber-listed in the UK National Biodiversity Action Plan, 11

11birds and 5 mammals in total.

12For each we built habitat suitability models. Based on these models, existing

13woodland habitats maps and a weighting scheme accounting for species

14conservation status and uncertainty in distribution, we carried out a spatially-explicit

15multiple criteria analysis highlighting areas that could be targeted for further

16afforestation (van der horst and Gimona, 2005). We also included in a further

17analysis the provision of visual amenity and recreation, to account for the need to

18deliver multiple benefits (Gimona and van der Horst, 2007) and showed that there is

19a portion of the studied landscape which could easily deliver all 3 benefits and should

20therefore be given priority for new plantings. 9 species were deemed to benefit from

21new seminatural woodlands, because they were identified as ‘forest’ or hedge

22species. These species were the object of the analysis reported in the next section.

23

242.2 Zonation algorithm

25For full details of this method see Moilanen and Wintle (2006) and Moilanen et al.,

26(2005), but we provide a summary of the salient characteristics below:

27The Zonation algorithm produces a nested prioritization of landscape areas, i.e. the

28most valuable 10% of the landscape is part of the most valuable 20% etc. The

1 5
 1algorithm progressively removes pixels from the landscape in a way that minimizes

2the loss of value, according to a criterion which depends on the distribution of the

3species in the remaining pixels. Core areas of all species are retained, avoiding the

4complete elimination of species due to trade-offs with other species.

5In order to enhance connectivity of the remaining areas, we used a penalty for

6boundary length (Moilanen and Wintle, 2006). This is a qualitative method, not

7species-specific, which penalizes the selection of groups of landscape cells with high

8boundary to surface ratios.

9The analysis we performed was aimed at selecting the cells with the highest priority

10in terms of planting of small woodlands. In this case we aimed at including 10% of

11the land in the afforestation scheme. 10% represents a rounded figure that sits

12between the current uptake level and a hypothetical uptake level under a 'higher

13payment' scenario (3.3% and 19.8% of farmland respectively; see van der Horst

142007). The figure is well below the current level of afforestation in the region (16.4%

15of Scotland's land area in 1995; see Forestry Commission, 2001)

16The input was 9 species-specific raster layers, for species of Birds and Mammals

17short-listed by the Northeast Biodiversity Action Plan, whose life cycle is known to

18require tree habitat. These were not habitat suitability layers, as such, but layers

19representing suitability for afforestation from the point of view of each species,

20obtained form spatially explicit habitat suitability models, at 50 m resolution (see van

21der Horst and Gimona, 2005 for details). In these input layers, each pixel was

22scored as 1 if afforestation would benefit that species, by occurring within dispersal

23distance from existing habitat, 0 if neutral. This was necessary because our

24objective was to select future habitat, yet to be created, rather than existing habitat.

25We compared the result obtained using as input for the zonation algorithm the whole

26of the original study area, to the result obtained using as input only the subset of the

27same landscape identified as the “priority” multi-functional area in a previous study

28(Gimona and van der Horst, 2007), see Figure 1. This enabled us to determine

1 6
 1whether the algorithm, when unconstrained by a prior zonation, would select a very

2different set of pixels (i.e. eliminate pixels in a very different order) than when the

3whole sub-optimal area was forced out early in the selection process (in order to

4retain preferentially cells from the multi-functional area).

6 Figure 1 here

8This allowed us to establish whether the zonation algorithm would have included in

9its ‘optimal’ solution portions of the landscape that we had deemed expendable using

10a multi-criteria analysis. To compare the 2 cases, we plotted the landscape value

11(calculated by the zonation algorithm) left in each case as landscape pixels were

12eliminated in order of their reverse global value. In other words, the graph in Figure 2

13shows how quickly landscape value, in terms of species representation, is lost as an

14increasing proportion of the landscape is excluded from designation. In this case

15designation meant ‘to be targeted for semi-natural afforestation’.

16Once the priority land was identified, land ownership boundaries were super-imposed

17on the resulting zonation. 71 farms/estates overlap the area of interest, and therefore

18the creation –or strengthening - of a forest network in this area would require the

19voluntary collaboration of a relatively high number of land owners/managers. We

20evaluated the propensity of land owners to create new habitat in the priority zone by

21assessing their level of participation to an existing afforestation scheme (an EU agri-

22environmental scheme; for more details see MLURI, 1996). The locations of all the

23woodlands planted under this scheme in the study area were obtained from the

24Forestry Commission.

25Based on the results, indicating very low participation, we then assumed a worst

26case scenario, in which all land managers refuse future afforestation in the priority

27area and repeated the zonation analysis forcing this area out of the selection. We

1 7
 1compared the benefit loss curves in this scenario with the previous curves to quantify

2the differences.

33. Results

4The results comparing multi-criteria analysis and the “zonation algorithm” are

5reassuring because they show that there is an underlying structure in the landscape

6which can be highlighted with different methods. This has also been found in other

7studies (e.g. Carwardine et. al., 2007). The results also confirm that the

8multifunctional area would be able to deliver biodiversity benefits as well as the other

9considered.

10Figure 2 shows that most the priority area is at the border between lowlands and

11uplands, and runs along some key river valleys, and that overlap between small

12woodlands planted under the scheme and the priority area is very limited (only 2).

13The benefit loss curves for the unconstrained selection and for the case where the

14multi-functional area was imposed as a priority are compared in Figure 3. This figure

15illustrates how landscape conservation value (in terms of benefits from afforestation)

16declines as progressively more valuable cells are removed from the final solution.

17The multifunctional area performs rather well in terms of biodiversity, i.e., selecting

18landscape pixels only in this area provides benefits that are lower but rather close to

19the unconstrained solution. The difference, however, would matter only if more than

2050% of the landscape needed to be targeted. The two curves progressively converge

21as a lower proportion of the landscape is selected and, at 10%, they are virtually

22overlapping.

23The situation would be very different, in terms of benefits provided, if the priority area

24was excluded due to e.g. poor uptake by land managers. Figure 4 compares the

25value loss curves. This would cause a marked loss of benefit such that a much

26higher landscape proportion would have to be selected to deliver a comparable

27amount of biodiversity benefit through afforestation. The differential between the

28curves is lower, but it is substantial even when the target proportion is 10%. To retain

1 8
 1the same value that the ‘optimal’ area achieves with 10% of the landscape, if this

2area were removed, one would have to retain over 50%, of the remaining landscape.

3This indicates that the alternative to the priority area would probably be financially not

4viable, or that a significantly lower amount of benefit could be gained for the same

5amount of financial incentives and illustrates the importance of participation of the

6‘right’ land managers to a given incentive scheme.

7In interpreting these results for the specific study area we have to bear in mind that

8semi-natural woodlands, and only a selected set of priority BAP species, are our

9focus of interest. The results indicate that, despite the fact that there are many forest

10plantations, biodiversity benefits would increase if part of these, as well as unplanted

11land, were replaced by semi-natural woodlands.

12

13

14 Figure 2 here

15

16 Figure 3 here

17

18

194. Discussion

20Landscape pattern and connectivity are important to promote species conservation at

21the landscape scale (e.g. Uezu et al., 2008; Braunish and Suchant, 2007; Gelling et

22al., 2007; Johnson et. al, 2007; Burel and Baudry, 2005; Aviron et al., 2005).

23There are many examples of applications of concepts from landscape ecology to

24species conservation at this scale (e.g. Opdam et al., 2003; Verboom et al., 2001,

25Vos et. al., 2001; Hoctor et al., 2000). While the case for taking into account the

26landscape’s spatial structure in biodiversity policy is quite clear, there are practical

27difficulties. Approaches based on metapopulation models have proven useful (e.g.

28Ackakaya, 1998) despite implementation caveats that should be taken into account

1 9
 1(e.g. Reed et al, 2002) but, to conserve species assemblages, require tens of spatial

2population models, whose parametrisation is impractical, due to limitations in

3available resources.

4Alternatives have therefore been developed such as using metapopulation models of

5‘generic’ species with assumed parameters. When a large number of species is

6involved, this can be still demanding in terms of computation time and might not be

7more informative than comparatively quicker methodologies such as LARCH

8(Landscape Analysis and Rules for the Configuration of Habitat) or the use of

9approaches such as multi-criteria analysis (e.g. Geneletti, 2007; de Warnaffe, 2002)

10and prioritization algorithms (e.g. Carwardine et. Al., 2007) All these alternatives are

11likely to be sub-optimal with respect to well parametrised species-specific models,

12but, at the same time, certainly more pragmatic, and can still highlight which

13landscape areas are more likely to deserve attention by policy makers. This can be

14very useful when designing a network of reserves or, as in this case, for targeting an

15afforestation scheme to increase its potential contribution to a habitat network.

16Nonetheless, the priority areas resulting from all these types of analysis are do not

17usually account for multiple landscape functions, and are rarely directly applicable in

18the real world; rather, they have to be viewed in the light of managerial constraints,

19especially regarding the uncertainty about the participation of individual land

20managers. This uncertainty is multi-dimensional and includes temporal, spatial and

21type or intensity of conservation efforts.

22Our results clearly indicated that propensity to join the afforestation scheme seemed

23very low in the priority area, as only one woodlot was planted under this scheme and

24therefore it seems that the incentives have failed to entice land managers to increase

25woodland habitat on their land.

26From a policy perspective, uncertainty in participation is clearly linked to financial

27issues surrounding the nature and level of incentives to entice landowners to take

28part. Since conservation budgets are limited, conservation policies should be

1 10
 1designed to maximise the ‘uptake’ (by land managers) of priority conservation

2measures. Predictions of the participation of land managers require a clear

3understanding of their motivations. Agri-environmental schemes tend to operate from

4the presumption of an economically rational behaviour of the landowner obtaining the

5grant (Madsen, 2003). This simple assumption is likely to hold for many individual

6farmers but the extent of its validity for the entire population of land owners and land

7managers should be properly verified – especially in areas where traditional full-time

8farming is in decline. Some farmers and other land-owners may be happy to

9undertake certain ecological interventions on a voluntary basis, some may accept

10these interventions on a cost-recovery basis (i.e. a fair compensation of the costs

11they incur) but others may be very hard to persuade even with high incentive

12payments. There is a growing body of attitudinal and behavioural studies which can

13be used to estimate aggregate response rates to certain policy measures. Empirical

14research (see Crabtree et al., 2001; Morris and Potter 1995; Potter and Lobley 1996;

15Watkins et al 1996; Wilson, 1997; Wynn et al., 2001) has shown that land managers’

16decisions to join incentive-based agri-environmental schemes (or not) may depend

17on a wide range of factors, including economic concerns related to the type of farm,

18the farm family’s lifecycle, sources of information or other personal and peer-group

19values and preferences. It is possible to construct typologies of land managers on the

20basis of the values and motivations which inform their course of action. For example

21in a Danish agri-environmental case study of farm afforestation, Madsen (2003)

22identifies 5 different types of land managers on the basis of two dimensions; the

23extent to which they are (1) attached to agriculture and (2) production oriented (as

24opposed to nature-oriented). Another insightful study from the US (Rickenbach et al.,

252006) shows that the willingness for cross-boundary collaboration, which is crucial for

26landscape-scale biodiversity conservation, is higher amongst land owners who are

27members of certain organisations (in this case two non-industrial forest owner

28associations). The potential relevance of such findings is clear: Social and personal

1 11
 1circumstances are important predictors of the uptake of conservation measures.

2Accounting for this may make targeting more efficient, as it could help to identify

3those land owners who do not require great financial incentives but could be

4persuaded to embrace conservation measures if they are provided with better advice,

5more relevant support for implementation or more information from organisations to

6which they belong or other influential sources they have access to and faith in.

95. Conclusions

10In many countries, including the UK, targeting land for conservation in the “wider

11countryside” means targeting and persuading land-owners to accept conservation

12measures, and this requires an integrated approach which combines ecological and

13socio-economic models. The analysis presented in this paper has illustrated that land

14ownership boundaries rather than raster cells are likely to be useful analysis units,

15and that biodiversity policy needs a targeting strategy tailored towards the particular

16characteristics of the landowners whose land has been identified (through a

17prioritization analysis) as being of the highest priority for conservation gains. Our

18findings highlight the need for more interdisciplinary modelling efforts in conservation

19optimisation models, and also show that such models are hardly the end point of

20policy advice. Our conclusion is that the practical relevance for conservation of

21landscape zonations based on spatially explicit models of the distribution of multiple

22species (used as shorthand for biodiversity) would benefit from inclusion land

23managers’ behaviour.

24

25

266. Acknowledgements

27The first author acknowledges the Scottish Government Rural and Environment

28Research and Analysis Directorate (RERAD) for financial support.

1 12
17. References

AKCAKAYA, H.R. and RAPHAEL, M.G.1998. Assessing human impact despite

uncertainty: viability of the northern spotted owl metapopulation in the northwestern
USA. Biodiversity And Conservation, 7, 875-894

ANDERSSON, E, BARTHEL, S, and AHRNE, K., 2007.Measuring social-ecological

dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications, 17
1267-1278 2007

ANTON, C., ZEISSET, I., MUSCHE, M., DURKA W. , BOOMSMA, J.J. and
SETTELE, J., 2007. Population structure of a large blue butterfly and its specialist
parasitoid in a fragmented landscape Molecular Ecology, 16, 3828-3838

AVIRON, S., BUREL, F., BAUDRY, J., and SCHERMANN, N. 2005, Carabid
assemblages in agricultural landscapes: impacts of habitat features, landscape
context at different spatial scales and farming intensity. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment 108, 205-217

BASCOMPTE J., and SOLE R.V. 1996 Habitat fragmentation and extinction
thresholds in spatially explicit models. Journal Of Animal Ecology 65, 465-473

BRAUNISCH, V., and SUCHANT, R. 2007. A model for evaluating the 'habitat
potential' of a landscape for capercaillie Tetrao urogallus: a tool for conservation
planning. Wildlife Biology, 13, 21-33 Suppl. 1

CARWARDINE, J., ROCHESTER, W.A., RICHARDSON, KS, WILLIAMS K.J. ,

PRESSEY, R. L., and POSSINGHAM, H. P. 2007. Conservation planning with
irreplaceability: does the method matter? Biodiversity And Conservation, 16, 245-258

CHAVE, J., and NORDEN, N. 2007.Changes of species diversity in a simulated

fragmented neutral landscape. Ecological Modelling, 20, 3-10

CRABTREE B., CHALMERS N., and EISER D.,2001. Voluntary incentive schemes
for farm forestry: uptake, policy effectiveness and employment impacts. Forestry 74,
455-465.

DE WARNAFFE, GD and DEVILLEZ, F. 2002. Quantifying the ecological value of

forests in order to integrate nature conservation in management planning: a
multicriteria method. Annals Of Forest Science, 59, 369-387.
DINERSTEIN, E., WIKRAMANAYAKE, E.D. 1993. Beyond hotspots - how to
prioritize investments to conserve biodiversity in the indo-pacific region. Conservation
Biology, 7, 53-65

DURRETT, R. and LEVIN, S., 1994 The importance of being discrete and spatial.
Theoretical population biology 46, 363-394

EPPS, CW, WEHAUSEN, JD, BLEICH, VC, TORRES S.G.and BRASHARES JS ,

2007. Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics. Journal Of
Applied Ecology, 44 714-724 2007.

FAITH, D.P., and WALKER, P.A. 1996. Integrating conservation and development:
Incorporating vulnerability into biodiversity-assessment of areas. Biodiversity And
Conservation, 5, 417-429.

1 13
 GELLING, M., MACDONALD, D.W., and MATHEWS, F. 2007. Are hedgerows the
route to increased farmland small mammal density? Use of hedgerows in British
pastoral habitats. Landscape Ecology, 22, 1019-1032

GENELETTI, D. 2007. An approach based on spatial multicriteria analysis to map

the nature conservation value of agricultural land. 200. Journal Of Environmental
Management, 83, 228-235.

GIMONA A., and VAN DER HORST D. 2007. Mapping hotspots of multiple
landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landscape
Ecology 22,1255-1264

GROOT BRUINDERINK, T. VAN DER SLUIS, D. LAMMERTSMA, P. OPDAM and R.

POUWELS, 2003, Designing a coherent ecological network for large mammals in
Northwestern Europe, Conservation Biology 17, 549–557

HANSKI I. 1998. Connecting the parameters of local extinction and metapopulation

dynamics Oikos 83, 390-396

HOCTOR, T.S., CARR, M.H., and ZWICK, P.D., 2000. Identifying a linked reserve
system using a regional landscape approach: The Florida ecological network.
Conservation Biology, 14, 984-1000

JOHNSON, M., REICH, P., and MAC NALLY, R. 2007. Bird assemblages of a
fragmented agricultural landscape and the relative importance of vegetation structure
and landscape pattern. Wildlife Research, 34, 185-193.

KAZMIERSKI J., KRAM M., MILLS E., PHEMISTER D., REO N., RIGGS E.,
TEFERTILLER R., and ERICKSON D., 2004. Conservation Planning at the
Landscape Scale: A landscape ecology method for regional land trusts. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 47, 709-736.

LE MAITRE, DC, MILTON, S.J., JARMAIN, C., COLVIN C.A. SAAYMA,N., I. , and
VLOK J.H.J. 2007. Linking ecosystem services and water resources: landscape-
scale hydrology of the Little Karoo. Frontiers In Ecology And The Environment, 5
261-270

LEIBOLD, M.A. and HOLYOAK, M. and MOUQUET, N., AMARASEKARE P,

CHASE JM, HOOPES MF, HOLT RD, SHURIN JB, LAW R, TILMAN D, LOREAU M,
and GONZALEZ A. 2004. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale
community ecology. Ecology Letters, 7, 601-613

MAC NALLY, R., 2007. Use of the abundance spectrum and relative-abundance
distributions to analyze assemblage change in massively altered landscapes.
American Naturalist, 170, 319-330

MADSEN L.M. 2003. New woodlands in Denmark: The role of private landowners.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1, 185–195.

MARGULES, C.R., and PRESSEY, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning.

Nature, 405, 243-253

MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-

being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

1 14
 MILLIONS, D.G., and SWANSON, B.J. 2007. Impact of natural and artificial barriers
to dispersal on the population structure of bobcats. Journal Of Wildlife Management,
71 96-102

MLURI, 1996. Evaluation of the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme. A report for
Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment & Fisheries Department. Economics and
Policy Series No 1, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen.

MOILANEN A. and WINTLE, B.A., 2006. Uncertainty analysis favours selection of

spatially aggregated reserve networks. Biological Conservation 129, 427-434

MOILANEN, A. 2007. Landscape Zonation, benefit functions and target-based

planning: Unifying reserve selection strategies. Biological Conservation, 134, 571-
579.

MORRIS C. and POTTER C. 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’

adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 111, 51-
63.

NORDERHAUG, A, IHSE, M., and PEDERSEN, O.,2000. Biotope patterns and

abundance of meadow plant species in a Norwegian rural landscape. Landscape
Ecology, 15, 201-218

PEAKALL, R., and LINDENMAYER, D. 2006. Genetic insights into population

recovery following experimental perturbation in a fragmented landscape. Biological
Conservation, 132, 520-532

POLUS, E., VANDEWOESTIJNE, S., and CHOUTT, J. 2007. Tracking the effects of
one century of habitat loss and fragmentation on calcareous grassland butterfly
communities. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16 12: 3423-3436

POTTER, C. and LOBLEY, M., 1996. The farm family life cycle, succession paths
and environmental change in Brittain’s countryside. Journal of Agricultural
Economics 472, 172-190.

PRESSEY, R.L., POSSINGHAM, H.P., and DAY, J.R. ,1997. Effectiveness of

alternative heuristic algorithms for identifying indicative minimum requirements for
conservation reserves. Biological Conservation, 80, 207-219

PRIESS, J.A., MIMLER, M., KLEIN, A.M., SCHWARZE, S., TSCHARNTKE, T., and
STEFFAN-DEWENTER, I. 2007. Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination
services and economic returns in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecological
Applications, 17, 407-417.

QUINLAN, R., PATERSON, A.M., HALL, RI, DILLON, P.J., WILKINSON, A.N.,
CUMMING, B.F., DOUGLAS, M.S.V., and SMOL, J.P. 2003. A landscape approach
to examining spatial patterns of limnological variables and long-term environmental
change in a southern Canadian lake district. Freshwater Biology, 48, 1676-1697

REED, J.M., MILLS, L.S., DUNNING, J.B., MENGES, E.S., MCKELVEY, K.S., FRYE
R., BEISSINGER, S.R., ANSTETT, M.C., and MILLER, P., 2002. Emerging issues in
population viability analysis. Conservation Biology, 16, 7-19

RICKENBACH M.G., GURIES R.P. and SCHMOLDT D.L. 2006. Membership

matters: comparing members and non-members of NIPF owner organizations in

1 15
 southwest Wisconsin, USA. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 93– 103.

SCHIECK, J, STUART-SMITH, K, and NORTON, M. 2000. Bird communities are

affected by amount and dispersion of vegetation retained in mixedwood boreal forest
harvest areas. Forest Ecology And Management, 126 239-254.

SHEPERD, B.F., and SWIHART, R.K., 1995 Spatial dynamics of fox squirrels
Sciurus niger in fragmented landscapes. Canadian journal of zoology-Revue
canadienne de zoologie 73, 2098-2105

STORFER, A. MURPHY, M.A., EVANS, J.S., EVANS, JS. ,GOLDBERG, C.S.,

ROBINSON, S., SPEAR S.F., DEZZANI, R., DELEMELLE, E., VIERLING, L., and
WAITS, L.P. , 2007. Putting the 'landscape' in landscape genetics. Heredity, 98, 128-
142

VAN DER HORST D., 2007. Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial
targeting of policy interventions, the example of an agri-environmental scheme.
Journal of Environmental Management 85, 1076-1087.

VAN DER HORST, D., and GIMONA, A. 2005, Where new farm woodlands support
Biodiversity Action Plans, a spatial multi-criteria analysis. Biological Conservation
123, 421-432.

WATKINS C., WILLIAMS D., LLOYD T. 1996. Constraints on farm woodland planting
in England: a study of Nottinghamshire farmers. Forestry, 69, 167-176.

WERNER, EE, YUREWICZ, KL, SKELLY, DK and RELYEA, R.A. 2007. Turnover in
an amphibian metacommunity: the role of local and regional factors. Oikos, 116,
1713-1725

WILSON G.A. 1997. Factors Influencing Farmer Participation in the Environmentally

Sensitive Area Scheme. Journal of Environmental Management 50, 67-93.

WITH, K.A. and CRIST T.O.1995, Critical thresholds in species responses to

landscape structure. Ecology 76, 2446-2459

WYNN, G. CRABTREE, R. and POTTS, J. 2001, Modelling farmer entry into the ESA
scheme in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 52, 1: 65-82.
1

1 16