Literature DB >> 21309851

A landholder-based approach to the design of private-land conservation programs.

Katie Moon1, Chris Cocklin.   

Abstract

Many ecosystems exist primarily, or solely, on privately owned (freehold) or managed (leasehold) land. In rural and semirural areas, local and regional government agencies are commonly responsible for encouraging landholders to conserve native vegetation and species on these private properties. Yet these agencies often lack the capacity to design and implement conservation programs tailored to rural and semirural landholdings and instead offer one program to all landholders. Landholders may elect not to participate because the program is irrelevant to their property or personal needs; consequently, vegetation-retention objectives may not be achieved. We differentiated landholders in Queensland, Australia, according to whether they derived income from the land (production landholders) or not (nonproduction landholders). We compared these two groups to identify similarities and differences that may inform the use of policy instruments (e.g., voluntary, economic, and regulatory) in conservation program design. We interviewed 45 landholders participating in three different conservation agreement programs (price-based rate [property tax] rebate; market-based tender; and voluntary, permanent covenant). Production landholders were more likely to participate in short-term programs that offered large financial incentives that applied to <25% of their property. Nonproduction landholders were more likely to participate in long-term programs that were voluntary or offered small financial incentives that applied to >75% of their property. These results may be explained by significant differences in the personal circumstances of production and nonproduction landholders (income, education, health) and differences in their norms (beliefs about how an individual is expected to act) and attitudes. Knowledge of these differences may allow for development of conservation programs that better meet the needs of landholders and thus increase participation in conservation programs and retention of native vegetation. ©2011 Society for Conservation Biology.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21309851     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01639.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  6 in total

1.  Farmer participation in U.S. Farm Bill conservation programs.

Authors:  Adam P Reimer; Linda S Prokopy
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Conservation covenants on private land: issues with measuring and achieving biodiversity outcomes in Australia.

Authors:  James A Fitzsimons; C Ben Carr
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2014-07-23       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  The Impact of Federal and State Conservation Programs on Farmer Nitrogen Management.

Authors:  Adam P Reimer; Riva C H Denny; Diana Stuart
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-07-21       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  Estimating landholders' probability of participating in a stewardship program, and the implications for spatial conservation priorities.

Authors:  Vanessa M Adams; Robert L Pressey; Natalie Stoeckl
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Motivating landowners to recruit neighbors for private land conservation.

Authors:  R M Niemiec; R Willer; N M Ardoin; F K Brewer
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 6.560

6.  Exploring private land conservation non-adopters' attendance at outreach events in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, USA.

Authors:  Daniel J Read; Alexandra Carroll; Lisa A Wainger
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-08-31       Impact factor: 2.984

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.