Monitoring and evaluating the social and psychological dimensions that contribute to privately protected area program effectiveness
Introduction
Privately protected areas (PPAs) are recognized as an integral, though perhaps under-appreciated, approach to conservation and sustainable development (Bingham et al., 2017; Stolton et al., 2014). Expanding and managing the protected area (PA) estate onto privately owned land presents challenges different to those faced by government-owned PA networks. PPAs offer opportunities for conservation organizations to work collaboratively with landholders and potentially improve cost-efficiency of conservation funding (Main et al., 1999). However, the contexts in which PPA programs operate are complex, dynamic and diverse (Cooke et al., 2012), and to an extent, the decision-making and behavior of landholders can determine the degree to which ecological values are enhanced or compromised. As such, maintaining the social and ecological values embodied in PPAs necessitates ongoing monitoring, evaluation and refinement of these initiatives.
The most common approaches to the monitoring and evaluation of PAs have focused on those that are government operated, e.g., impact evaluations (Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006; Hockings et al., 2006; Stem et al., 2005). These approaches have the benefit of providing an audit of the ecological values within the protected area (i.e., species, ecosystems, ecological and evolutionary processes, and/or ecosystem services), and ideally the management processes designed to maintain them (Cook et al., 2010; Hockings, 2003; Knight et al., 2011), both essential components of evaluating PPAs. However, for PPAs it is often the decision-making and behavior of landholders that typically determines the degree to which the ecological values are retained or improved. As such, understanding, fostering, monitoring and evaluating a landholder's commitment and capacity to manage their land as well as the land they manage, is fundamental to establishing and maintaining effective PPAs.
Previous studies have assessed the social dimensions of PPAs or other in perpetuity conservation mechanisms for privately held lands. A large amount of research has been devoted to understanding landholder motivations for adopting PPAs (e.g., Ernst and Wallace, 2008, Farmer et al., 2011, Horton et al., 2017, Kabii and Horwitz, 2006, Pasquini et al., 2010). Smaller bodies of research have examined landholder satisfaction with specific PPA programs (Feinberg, 1997; Forshay et al., 2005; Selinske et al., 2015; Stroman and Kreuter, 2016), management activities and post-enrollment needs (Farmer et al., 2017; Fitzsimons and Wescott, 2007; Stephens et al., 2002; Stroman and Kreuter, 2015) and the challenges landholders face in managing their lands to achieve conservation goals (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014; Halliday et al., 2012; Horton et al., 2017). What is missing is a holistic representation of how these social dimensions interact with PPA programs to maintain landholder PPA stewardship.
In addition to its conceptualization as an ethic or moral philosophy (Leopold, 1949; Enqvist et al., 2018), stewardship has been defined as ‘actions taken by individuals, groups, or networks of actors, with various motivations and levels of capacity to protect, care for or responsibly use the environment in pursuit of environmental and/or social outcomes in diverse social-ecological contexts’ (Bennett et al., 2018: 599). Within a PPA context, both the landholders and PPA organizations are actors working collaboratively towards the stewardship of private lands (Cooke et al., 2012), though much of the management responsibility falls on the landholder. Designing and delivering effective PPA programs requires organizations to motivate private landholders to enroll their land, while also continuing to facilitate and monitor landholder's PPA stewardship post-enrollment (Selinske et al., 2017).
Previous research has found the capacity of PPA landholders for undertaking stewardship (time, money, physical abilities and knowledge) is heterogeneous (Kabii and Horwitz, 2006). Landholder motivations for stewardship can be both intrinsic (e.g. sense of purpose, conservation identity) and extrinsic (e.g. access to management expertise, financial opportunities, recognition) (Pasquini et al., 2010). Multiple mechanisms (e.g. tax incentives, stewardship officer outreach, protection in perpetuity) can be used to cater for the variety of motivations among a population and within individuals, and to build landholder capacity for PPA management (Selinske et al., 2017; Young et al., 1996). How well landholder expectations of program performance are met (e.g. regular stewardship officer visits, timely and efficient establishment of the PPA) shapes their experience in participating, as do the benefits (e.g. psychological wellbeing, financial, expansion of social networks) they perceive to be gaining (Cross et al., 2011; Farrier, 1995, Horton et al., 2017 Selinske et al., 2015). Over time, these factors may impact a landholder's satisfaction and so determine their commitment to the program, (as per conservation volunteer programs; Asah and Blahna, 2013; Miles et al., 1998). However, the factors that drive satisfaction may differ from those that motivated them to join the PPA program (Horton et al., 2017; Selinske et al., 2015), and are likely dynamic as a result of changes in the program, its context, and landholders needs (Lindsay, 2016).
We conceptualize PPA stewardship as long-term retention of a landholder in a program who exhibits compliance with a management agreement and to the agreed land use restrictions of the covenant. Although landholders managing covenanted PPAs may have in perpetuity agreements with a covenant/easement organization, there is no guarantee that they, or future landholders, will comply with their management agreements (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014, although see Hardy et al., 2017). Buyers and inheritors have been known to be less enthusiastic about meeting management agreements and might be more likely to breach an in perpetuity contract (Collins, 2000; Rissman and Butsic, 2011). This presents compliance and enforcement issues for administering organizations, as well as questions for ecological integrity (Schuster and Arcese, 2015). A PPA program that monitors and responds to the social dynamism of PPAs such as landholder satisfaction, ownership changes, compliance and enforcement issues, and fluctuating landholder capacities, will be better suited to maintaining stewardship over the long term and delivering biodiversity benefits. We examine the factors that influence PPA stewardship and effectiveness in an Australian context.
Australia has among the most expansive and longest-running PPA programs in the world (Fitzsimons, 2015; Stolton et al., 2014), with a suite of mechanisms similar to other countries with well-developed PPA programs, such as New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States. The Australian PPA estate is comprised of land owned and managed by 1) non-profit conservation organizations; and 2) individuals on freehold and/or leasehold lands protected by conservation covenant (Fitzsimons, 2015). Conservation covenants are voluntary legally-binding in-perpetuity agreements, written into the land title deeds, between a landholder and a covenanting-administering organization, typically a state government agency or not-for-profit land trust, with legal authority to sign such agreements under legislation (Fitzsimons, 2006). Covenants are accompanied by plans of management, stewardship visits, and staff phone-calls (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014). Breaches of covenant agreements are reportedly rare (Hardy et al., 2017). Despite the relatively longevity of programs and number of covenants there have only been a small number of published surveys of the views, perceptions and behaviors of covenantors (e.g. Fitzsimons and Wescott, 2007; Halliday et al., 2012; Stephens et al., 2002).
In this research we aimed to 1) identify the levels of landholder satisfaction with Australian PPA programs and the factors that define it; 2) identify the challenges faced by landholders in managing their lands for biodiversity and in participating in a PPA program; 3) develop and advance a more holistic understanding of PPA stewardship and in so doing; 4) provide Australian conservation covenant programs guidance for planning and implementing their future monitoring, evaluation and program expansion activities.
Section snippets
Study region
Our study focused on PPA programs within the states of New South Wales, Tasmania, and Victoria, located in southeastern Australia (Fig. 1). Each state has its own legislation for managing species and ecosystems, but the national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 also applies for threatened species or ecological communities listed as being of national significance. The region is comprised of a diverse range of ecosystems, including an internationally recognized
Results
The response rate collectively for all states was 30.9% (n = 527). Thirteen of the postal surveys from Victoria were returned as incorrectly addressed. Our testing for non-response bias, revealed no interpretable bias between the two response groups. A majority (64.2%) of the responding landholders were 60 years of age or older, 47.1% of respondents were retirees and just over half (50.4%) resided on their covenanted land, indicating nearly half were absentee landholders (Table 2). Production
Discussion
Privately Protected Areas in Australia have seen dramatic growth in recent decades for a variety of reasons, including governments seeking to meet national and global protected area targets, and landholders acting to conserve the nature on their land (Fitzsimons, 2015; Hardy et al., 2017). Ensuring that PPA programs foster ongoing commitment to stewardship from landholders to manage their lands, contribute to the integrity of the contract, and remain engaged in the program, is central to
Conclusions
Assessing the management effectiveness of protected areas and protected area networks, including PPAs, is increasingly important (Hockings et al., 2006). In addition to ecological and compliance monitoring (Fitzsimons and Carr, 2014; Hardy et al., 2017), it is equally important for PPA initiatives to consider the social dimensions and outcomes of PPA programs. Effective PPA program design is founded upon understanding the reasons why stakeholders get involved and how their commitment is engaged
Acknowledgements
The landholders enrolled in the covenanting programs in New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria who responded to our survey are sincerely thanked for providing their time and insights. We gratefully acknowledge the funding and the support that was provided by The Nature Conservancy Australia (generously supported by The Thomas Foundation), the Australian Land Conservation Alliance, Nature Conservation Trust of NSW, Trust for Nature (Victoria), Tasmanian Land Conservancy, Nature Foundation SA,
References (84)
- et al.
Who participates in conservation incentive programs? Absentee and group landholders are in the mix
Land Use Policy
(2018) - et al.
Money and motives: an organizational ecology perspective on private land conservation
Biol. Conserv.
(2016) - et al.
Co-opting and resisting market based instruments for private land conservation
Land Use Policy
(2018) - et al.
Adoption of conservation easements among agricultural landowners in Colorado and Wyoming: the role of economic dependence and sense of place
Landsc. Urban Plan.
(2011) - et al.
Perceptions and attitudes of land managers in multi-tenure reserve networks and the implications for conservation
J. Environ. Manag.
(2007) - et al.
An evaluation of landowners' conservation easements on their livelihoods and well-being
Biol. Conserv.
(2017) - et al.
Modification of the volunteer functions inventory for application in youth sports
Sport Manag. Rev.
(2010) - et al.
Estate planning as a forest stewardship tool: a study of family land ownerships in the northeastern US
Forest Policy Econ.
(2017) - et al.
Personal circumstances and social characteristics as determinants of landholder participation in biodiversity conservation programs
J. Environ. Manag.
(2012) - et al.
Private land manager capacity to conserve threatened communities under climate change
J. Environ. Manag.
(2015)
Practical implications of understanding the influence of motivations on commitment to voluntary urban conservation stewardship
Conserv. Biol.
Measures of Australia's progress, 2010
Environmental stewardship: a conceptual review and analytical framework
Environ. Manag.
Privately protected areas: advances and challenges in guidance, policy and documentation
Parks
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Qual. Res. Psychol.
BushTender – The Landholder Perspective: A Report on Landholder Responses to the BushTender trial
Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Enforcement problems with successor grantors
Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions
Front. Ecol. Environ.
Social context and the role of collaborative policy making for private land conservation
J. Environ. Plan. Manag.
Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests
Psychometrika
Private landowner conservation behavior following participation in voluntary incentive programs: recommendations to facilitate behavioral persistence
Conserv. Lett.
Internet, Mail, Mixed-mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Protected areas on private land program
Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: linking care, knowledge and agency
Landsc. Urban Plan.
Characteristics, motivations, and management actions of landowners engaged in private land conservation in Larimer County Colorado
Nat. Areas J.
Motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements
Conserv. Biol.
Private landowners, voluntary conservation programs, and implementation of conservation friendly land management practices
Conserv. Lett.
Conserving biodiversity on private land: incentives for management or compensation for lost expectations
Harvard Environ. Law Rev.
An Evaluation of Landowner Satisfaction With Conservation Easements
Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments
PLoS Biol.
Private Protected Areas? Assessing the suitability for incorporating conservation agreements over private land into the National Reserve System: a case study of Victoria
Environ. Plan. Law J.
Private protected areas in Australia: current status and future directions
Nat. Conserv.
Conservation covenants on private land: issues with measuring and achieving biodiversity outcomes in Australia
Environ. Manag.
Landowner satisfaction with the wetlands reserve program in Wisconsin
Environ. Manag.
Volunteer motivations and constraints among college students: analysis of the volunteer function inventory and leisure constraints models
Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q.
How local landholder groups collectively manage weeds in South-eastern Australia
Environ. Manag.
Making decisions about forestland succession: perspectives from Pennsylvania's private forest landowners
Soc. Nat. Resour.
Fire management on private conservation lands: knowledge, perceptions and actions of landholders in eastern Australia
Int. J. Wildland Fire
Exploring the permanence of conservation covenants
Conserv. Lett.
Factors influencing property selection for conservation revolving funds
Conserv. Biol.
Cited by (31)
Exploring motives for participation in a perpetual easement program: Going beyond financial incentives
2023, Biological ConservationMaintaining landholder satisfaction and management of private protected areas established under conservation agreements
2022, Journal of Environmental ManagementCitation Excerpt :Some covenants in Australia are entered into as a condition of subdivision or as an offset for native vegetation clearance (e.g., DELWP, 2020; DWE, 2020) rather than voluntarily; in our sample, 21% of landholders reported that using it as an offset or to meet other regulatory requirements were important motivations (Fig. 3A), although 95% of these landholders also reported a desire to protect natural values. Solely extrinsic motivations were rare amongst the landholders in our study, consistent with other research that report financial incentives are a relatively minor consideration for covenantors (e.g., Farmer et al., 2011b; Selinske et al., 2019). The motivations reported by successive owners were similar to original signees, again dominated by pro-environmental values (Fig. 3A).
Public engagement and its challenging role in conservation and monitoring
2022, Coastal Habitat Conservation: New Perspectives and Sustainable Development of Biodiversity in the AnthropoceneUnderstanding citizen scientists’ willingness to invest in, and advocate for, conservation
2022, Biological ConservationAssessing landowners’ preferences to inform voluntary private land conservation: The role of non-monetary incentives
2021, Land Use PolicyCitation Excerpt :These results suggest that offering a variety of options regarding the agreement length, would contribute to increase overall landowners’ participation (Lennox and Armsworth, 2011). While short length contracts might compromise long-term conservation security (Kamal et al., 2015; Roberts and Lubowski, 2007), they may provide opportunities for more frequent extension officer visits (e.g. agronomist, conservation practitioner) and adaptive collaborative management, possibly resulting in increasing landowners’ satisfaction after enrolment (Farmer et al., 2017; Hardy et al., 2017; Selinske et al., 2015, 2019). In addition, fostering existing landowners’ networks (e.g. exchange of diverse knowledge, skills and resources) may increase engagement in the long term while facilitating the coordination of conservation actions across property boundaries and social learning (Banerjee et al., 2017; Cortés-Capano et al., 2020; Duff et al., 2017; Hoffman, 2017; Kuhfuss et al., 2016a; Maciejewski et al., 2016).
The neglected complexities of shark fisheries, and priorities for holistic risk-based management
2019, Ocean and Coastal Management