Hierarchy and subsidy-stress as a theoretical basis for managing environmentally sensitive areas

Abstract

Although there has been considerable research and development in the management of specific natural resources and public lands containing multiple resources, relatively little progress has been made concerning management of privately owned resources through land-use planning at the local level of government. This paper examines the issue of local government policies and capabilities in land-use planning for privately owned environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) in the Pacific Northwest of North America. Environmentally sensitive areas are defined as landscape elements vital to long-term maintenance of biological diversity, soil, water, and other natural resources, especially as they relate to human health, safety, and welfare, both on-site and in a regional context. Three studies are used in a stepwise manner (i.e. watershed, state, and region) to examine the relationship between the legal structure of ESA management and ecological theory. When viewed collectively, these studies show that although there is a political basis for regulating ESAs, attempts at regulation lack a theoretical and applied basis in systems thinking and ecological science. To begin forging a stronger linkage between the political and scientific basis for ESA planning, two major ecological theories relevant to ESA management, hierarchy and subsidy-stress, are reviewed. These theories, when used in concert, are shown to be applicable in making objective choices concerning privately held ESAs in the Pacific Northwest, providing both qualitative and quantitative models. Hierarchy theory can provide guidelines for ESA planning by linking biophysical processes and patterns directly to appropriate scales of political jurisdiction; it can be used to better define the local, state, and federal government partnerships needed to achieve sustainable landscapes. Subsidy-stress theory can be used to set specific performance standards needed for the regulation of ESA uses. As a result of our three-step approach at different geographic scales, four requisites for improving ESA planning are described: (1) definitions for natural resources should be standardized between regional districts, counties, states, and provinces; (2) replicative methods for ESA inventories which include natural communities and ecosystem processes should be used; (3) a common environmental information system should be available to land-use planners; (4) the expertise to apply such information should be available. The basis for these four items is found in the ecological systems theories of hierarchy and subsidy-stress.