Political ecology and habitat conservation for endangered species planning in Southern California: Region, places, and ecological governance
Original Publication by Stephanie Pincetl, A.E. Jonas, and Jim Sullivan
Summary by Rhay Flores, Athena Lynch, Jessica Patzlaff, Laurel Thomas, and Sophia Todorov
About the authors
Dr. Stephanie Pincetl is a leader and Chair for the California Center for Sustainable Communities at UCLA. Dr. AE Jonas is a prominent researcher at the University of Hull - one journal even lists him as the 22nd most cited author in geography and urban studies. Jim Sullivan works with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, aiding in large-scale conservation projects.
About the journal
Our first summary will focus on an article published within the journal, Geoforum. Geoforum publishes research regarding human geography- the branch of geography focusing on the interactions between the environment and human activities such as culture, economics, communities, and others.
Section 1) Introduction
Nature and industry have historically had opposing interests. However, in recent years, there has been progress in overcoming this duality. This is apparent in the role of nature conservation within developed societies.
Urban Political Ecology (UPE) focuses on the ecology which underpins urban development. UPE highlights the relationship between nature and society now that conservation has become an important consideration in modern development. UPE, however, often falls short in explaining how local ecological differences within regions shape development and conservation planning trajectories.
The purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between ecology and land use within Riverside county by reviewing literature, summarizing habitat conservation policies, and comparing different regions within the county.
Section 2) Urban political ecology, coupled bio-social science, and the politics of urban development
Classic studies in political ecology focused largely in the “developing” world and how Indigenous people managed their landscapes and environments. However, “colonial, commercial, and conservation interests” have disrupted that dynamic by excluding Indigenous people from their land and by introducing foreign crops to local ecosystems.
Only recently has UPE focused on developed countries. Relevant literature within this field indicates that society has become more complex as a result of greater distinctions between institutional orders. For example, various decentralized modes of governance resulted from the capitalist political economy’s reorganization.
This article emphasizes how local ecological factors, political processes, property rights, and fiscal constraints interact to make political ecology different between Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley, areas which are under the same umbrella of governance.
Section 3) Method
This article was developed through a retrospective narrative synthesis of previous research. Essentially, the authors analyzed a variety of different source materials from the years 1994-2007 in order to better understand the dynamics of habitat conservation planning in Western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley.
Section 4) The regulatory trigger: the Endangered Species Act
This section discusses the various roles of different conservation measures within the United States. First, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is primarily led by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This primary agency is in charge of interpretation and enforcement of the act. This act has clear effects on private land use if there is a high chance that a development project will impact an endangered species in California. Next, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates that development projects disclose specific details on their environmental impact.
In addition, this section clarifies the distinction between Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). The former is a development plan focusing on protecting a single species while the latter may protect multiple species within the ecosystem.
A take-away message of this section is that landowners often ignore the evolving nature of ecosystems. The unpredictable nature of climate change should warrant more flexibility on the part of the conservation measures’ enforcement. This resulting “regulatory uncertainty” however, likely discourages landowners from pursuing balance between conservation and development.
Section 5) Riverside County land use and development context
Riverside county’s population is expected to rapidly increase in the coming years with people of Latinx descent expected to become the dominant ethnic group. In addition, approximately a third of Riverside County’s population lives in unincorporated areas that are disconnected from any cities, scattered in clustered subdivisions- these areas are affordable options for people who commute to their work. Thus, the west portion of the county is highly fragmented and is mixed with natural vegetation and agricultural land.
The Coachella Valley also experienced rapid population growth, attracting large amounts of tourists and seasonal residents. The land development in Coachella Valley is more concentrated, unlike Western Riverside County, and the unincorporated parts are a lot more sparse.
Section 6) Local political ecologies of the ESA in Riverside County, California
The beginning of Riverside county’s history of conservation can be traced back to their watershed preservation efforts in the 1890’s. Parks were then established in the 1930’s to protect distinctive desert species and ecosystems.
Next, in 1986, the first species to be protected was the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard. It was threatened due to land development in their native habitat, the desert dunes. Shortly after, in 1988, the Western Riverside County focused their efforts on passing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) regarding the endangered Stephens kangaroo rat.
Then, in 1990, the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) was formed to enact long-term plans for conservation of endangered species. In 1994, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) was drafted by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. It was then signed and approved in 2007.
Section 7) Reflections on why regional ecology and urban development produce different places
The advent of local systems and economies provides for new ways of organizing that are not through state powers. This means that each organizational structure can be different because they’re specific to that respective local economy or political culture. In the riverside case study, we see how our societal rules and systems change the environment and how those changes in the environment then influence those same systems and urban developments. This can be summarized as somewhat of a feedback loop. Essentially, nature has become central to the locale economy as land has changed into something profitable.
In the Coachella valley, on the other hand, habitat preservation as well as a healthy economy and housing supply have been found to coexist. This is due to the area’s isolation, local support/appreciation for the natural environment, and the fact that it has the capability to be developed without severe consequences (partly because it is mostly inhospitable).
A key takeaway from this section is that development allows people to make the funds to pay to buy and save habitats. This article found that other habitat preservation avenues, such as volunteer efforts and donations, are not as significant as that through earning money off the land they then intend to preserve. This is especially true due to a lack of financial support for habitat conservation projects from the state.
Section 8) Conclusion
In conclusion, urban political ecology brings our attention to flows and connections within cities, but we also need to focus more on ecosystem processes and suburban development. How do systems in ecology, cities, and suburbs interact? What organizational structures do they create and who/what do those structures serve? Details matters when asking these questions- very small changes in local culture and ecologies can produce vastly different outcomes. These nuances must be studied very closely to examine the various efficacies of different conservation efforts.
In addition, urban systems and institutions have their own processes and flows, but they also interact with local systems and ecological processes. Suggestions for further research include more detailed studies, aimed at carefully examining socio-ecological interactions and investigating how to set up systems that will be able to withstand environmental changes- both future ones and those already in progress.
Pincetl, Stephanie, et al. “Political Ecology and Habitat Conservation for Endangered ...” ScienceDirect, Geoforum, 25 Feb. 2011, www.researchgate.net/publication/241127071_Political_ecology_and_habitat_conservation_for_endangered_species_planning_in_Southern_California_Region_places_and_ecological_governance.
Comments