Ecological Indicators 11 (2011) 789–810 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Ecological Indicators journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind Original article The landscape infrastructure footprint of oil development: Venezuela’s heavy oil belt Chris W Baynard * Dept. of Economics and Geography, University of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA article info Article history: Received 22 June 2009 Received in revised form 26 August 2010 Accepted 20 October 2010 Key words: Venezuela Landscape ecology Infrastructure footprint GIS and remote sensing Heavy oil belt abstract Oil exploration and production activities (OEPA) and other extractive endeavors can create large-scale and permanent landscape alterations through the establishment of infrastructure features such as roads, well pads, pipelines and production facilities. These structures can lead to or increase landscape fragmen- tation and degradation, reduce biodiversity, disrupt important ecosystem services and attract informal settlements that further alter the landscape, deplete area resources and lead to social conflict. Aside from regulatory standards, many energy (oil and gas) companies include voluntary environmental per- formance as part of their sustainability reporting. However, they do not account for these site-specific alterations in a systematic, quantifiable and transparent way. This paper proposes a calculation of a mod- ified Landscape Infrastructure Footprint (LIF) of OEPA based on landscape ecology metrics measured via GIS and remote sensing techniques. Three Venezuelan heavy oil belt (HOB) operations were examined with reference to the years 1990 and 2000. Results indicate that Ameriven displayed the smallest LIF. Newer technologies, best practices, land cover, competing economic interests and type of management may explain observed alterations. LIF methods provide four important benefits. First, they can help to reduce surface disturbances by informing planning practices in current as well as in new projects. Second, they fortify environmental reporting by providing objective measures of environmental performance tied to extractive activities. Third, by including LIF in their sustainability practices, extractive industries can improve their competitive advantage. Finally, the LIF helps create a set of transparent environmental performance standards that industry and regulators can adopt in order to measure and monitor landscape alterations resulting from extractive activities. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The development of infrastructure features related to extrac- tive industries such as oil and gas, mining and logging can lead to large-scale and permanent land-use land-cover changes (LUCC). These include habitat fragmentation, land degradation, soil ero- sion, loss of wildlife; the introduction of invasive species; river siltation; large water draw-downs; air, soil and water pollution; increased greenhouse gas emissions and the opening of corridors for disease vectors (Nelleman and Cameron, 1996; Schneider et al., 2003; Morton et al., 2004; Lee and Boutin, 2006; Boletta et al., 2006; Lawrence et al., 2007; Turner et al., 2007; Fischer and Lindenmayer, 2007). The accessibility created by roads built to extract natural resources can draw new settlers to previously inaccessible areas if government policies and enforcement do not dissuade them, or to contrary, attract them (Hiraoka and Yamamoto, 1980; Southgate, * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 904 620 1243. E-mail addresses: cbaynard@unf.edu, cbaynard@gmail.com 1990; Pelache, 2001; Brandão and Souza, 2006). Colonization can lead to further land clearing and degradation, increased demand on natural resources, conflicts among competing interests (includ- ing indigenous groups) and population growth spurred by a service sector meeting the needs of the new “boom” economy (Musinsky et al., 1998; Schmink and Wood, 1992; Laurance et al., 2001; Forman et al., 2003; Lee and Boutin, 2006; Wilderness Society, 2006; Brandão and Souza, 2006). In addition to complying with regulatory standards, multi- national oil companies (MNOCs) are increasingly engaged in minimizing and monitoring both environmental and social impacts as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) and envi- ronmental stewardship efforts (Moser, 2001; Curlee, 2007). After all, implementing environmental best practices can have several positive business benefits. These include: securing and maintain- ing operating licenses; preventing costly environmental disasters, project terminations, work stoppages, lawsuits, negative press cov- erage, political protests, sabotage and hostage taking (Anderson, 1994; Orlitzky et al., 2003; Diamond, 2005; Lawrence, 2007; Kakabadse, 2007; IPIECA, 2007; Edoho, 2008; GRI, 2010). They 1470-160X/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.10.005