land management
Recently Published Documents





2022 ◽  
Vol 211 ◽  
pp. 105956
Xihua Yang ◽  
John Leys ◽  
Jonathan Gray ◽  
Mingxi Zhang

PLoS ONE ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. e0262218
Zhiliang Zhu ◽  
Beth Middleton ◽  
Emily Pindilli ◽  
Darren Johnson ◽  
Kurt Johnson ◽  

Public lands in the United States are those land areas managed by federal, state, and county governments for public purposes such as preservation and recreation. Protecting carbon resources and increasing carbon sequestration capacity are compatible with public land management objectives for healthy and resilient habitats, i.e., managing habitats for the benefit of wildlife and ecosystem services can simultaneously capture and store carbon. To evaluate the effect of public land management on carbon storage and review carbon management as part of the land management objectives, we used existing data of carbon stock and net ecosystem carbon balance in a study of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), a public land management program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Total carbon storage of the 364 refuges studied was 16.6 PgC, with a mean value 42,981 gCm-2. We used mixed modeling with Bonferroni adjustment techniques to analyze the effect of time since refuge designation on carbon storage. In general, older refuges store more carbon per unit area than younger refuges. In addition to the age factor, carbon resources are variable by regions and habitat types protected in the refuges. Mean carbon stock and the rate of sequestration are higher within refuges than outside refuges, but the statistical comparison of 364 refuges analyzed in this study was not significant. We also used the social cost of carbon to analyze the annual benefits of sequestrating carbon in these publicly managed lands in the United States, which is over $976 million per year in avoided CO2 emissions via specific conservation management actions. We examine case studies of management, particularly with respect to Service cooperation activities with The Conservation Fund (TCF) Go Zero® Program, Trust for Public Land (TPL) and individuals. Additional opportunities exist in improving techniques to maximize carbon resources in refuges, while continuing to meet the core purpose and need of the NWRS.

Lara Jacobs ◽  
Serina Payan Hazelwood ◽  
Coral Avery ◽  
Christy Sangster-Biye

U.S. Federal Land Management Areas (FLMAs) are grounded in settler colonialism, including Indigenous land dispossessions and violations of Tribal treaties. This critical thought-piece is written by Indigenous scholars to reimagine FLMAs (especially recreation areas) through decolonization and the Indigenous value systems embedded within the “four Rs”: relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, and redistribution. We reweave conceptions about parks and protected areas, reimagine park management, and reconfigure management foci to reflect Indigenous value systems shared by Indigenous peoples. We emphasize a need for Tribal comanagement of FLMAs, the inclusion of Tribal land management practices across ecosystems, and the restoration of Indigenous land use and management rights. Land and recreation managers can use this paper to 1) decolonize park management practices, 2) understand how Indigenous value systems can inform park management foci, and 3) build a decolonized and reciprocal relationship with Tribes and their ancestral landscapes.

Rachel Franchina ◽  
Rachel Collins ◽  
Chris Colvin ◽  
Aleksandra Pitt ◽  
Linda Merigliano ◽  

Public land management is inherently complex and requires a systems approach that integrates ecological, economic, and social values. Currently, there are few tools and examples available for federal land management planning that use a systems approach. Issues are often approached from a disciplinary perspective, and outdoor recreation problems, assumptions, and solutions often focus too narrowly on how to mitigate recreation impacts as opposed to understanding the broader role of visitor use and access, public engagement, and public health in sustainable land management. The Visitor Use Management Framework (the Framework), developed by the Interagency Visitor Use Management Council (IVUMC, 2016) provides interagency guidance for managing public use on federal lands and waters. The Framework uses a process that can be incorporated into existing agency planning and decision making. It follows all of the Council agencies’ (NPS, BLM, USFS, USFWS, ACoE, NOAA) planning principles and illustrates how to specifically address visitor experiences and resource protection with an integrated planning approach. This research note explores the evolving role of the Framework in sustainable recreation management and how public health, public engagement, and representation, inclusion, and access can be incorporated throughout the Framework to ensure planning decisions meet the needs, values, and preferences of diverse user groups. Further, this paper invites a broader discussion around next steps for boldly moving to integrate public health, public engagement, and representation, inclusion, and access more fully into all aspects of visitor use management, including the Framework. Collective effort and ongoing innovation is needed to ensure that the Framework is thoughtfully implemented in ways that provide opportunities to enhance outdoor recreation access and inclusion for a broader range of people.

2022 ◽  
Forrest Fleischman ◽  
Cory Struthers ◽  
Gwen Arnold ◽  
Michael J Dockry ◽  
Tyler Scott

Abstract In this article, we respond to a critique of our earlier work examining the USDA Forest Service’s (USFS’s) planning processes. We appreciate that our critics introduce new data to the discussion of USFS planning. Further data integration is a promising path to developing a deeper understanding of agency activities. Our critics’ analysis largely supports our original claims. Our most important difference is in our conceptualization of the planning process’s relationship to agency goals. Although our critics conceive of the USFS’s legally prescribed planning processes as a barrier to land management activities, we believe that public comment periods, scientific analysis, and land management activities are tools the agency uses to achieve its goals of managing land in the public interest. Study Implications: The USDA Forest Service’s current planning process has been critiqued as a barrier to accomplishing land management activities, but it is also an important tool for insuring science-based management and understanding public values and interests that the agency is legally bound to uphold.

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-98
Walter Timo De Vries

Changes in spatial planning and land management practices, regulations and operations have frequently relied on the uptake of innovations in geospatial technologies. This article reviews which ones the spatial planning and land management domains has effectively adopted and which new ones might potentially disrupt the domain in the near future of 2021 and beyond. Based on an extensive concept-centric trends synthesis and meta-review, the analysis demonstrates that whilst geospatial technologies are clearly gaining wider societal recognition and while private companies are indeed developing promising applications, its adoption in office work of public officials and public decision makers remains almost as limited as before. The potentially most disruptive technologies for the domain are however BIM, Block chain and Machine learning.

2022 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Yanyu Wang ◽  
Eri Saikawa ◽  
Alexander Avramov ◽  
Nicholas S. Hill

Cultivated lands that support high productivity have the potential to produce a large amount of GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4). Intensive land management practices can stimulate CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions from the soil. Cover crop establishment is considered as one of the sustainable land management strategies under warm and humid environmental conditions. To better understand how the incorporation of cover crops affect three major GHGs, we compared trace gas fluxes in a no-till maize field over the whole growing season in 2018 in a no cover crop (Tr) system and three cover crop systems: crimson clover (CC), cereal rye (CR), and living mulch (LM) using white clover. In 2019, we further explored potential differences in the three GHGs between in-row (IR) and between-row (BWR) of maize for LM and Tr systems during the early growing season. Measurements were taken using a cavity ring-down spectroscopy gas analyzer in Watkinsville, GA. In 2018, the highest CO2 flux (7.00 μmol m−2 s−1) was observed from BWR of maize for LM. The maximum N2O flux observed in LM on June 20th in 2018 was when soil N increase rate was the largest. Soils served as sinks for CH4 and Tr system served as the smallest CH4 sink compared to the other three cover crop systems. For N2O, the highest fluxes were observed from the TrIR plot (4.13 μmol m−2 hr−1) in 2019 with the greatest N inputs. In 2019, we observed a smaller CH4 sink in TrIR (−0.13 μmol m−2 hr−1) compared to TrBWR (−0.67 μmol m−2 hr−1) due potentially to greater NH4+ inhibition effects on CH4 consumption from greater N fertilizer inputs. The net carbon equivalent (CE) from May 23rd to Aug 16th in 2018, taking into account the three GHG fluxes, soil carbon content, and fertilizer, irrigation, and herbicide application, were 32–97, 35–101, 63–139, and 40–106 kg ha−1 yr−1 for CC, CR, LM, and Tr, respectively. LM had the lowest net CE after removing white clover respiration (−16–60 kg ha−1 yr−1). Our results show that implementing different types of cover crop systems and especially the LM system have some potential to mitigate climate change.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document