tools for integrating conservation priorities with conservation opportunities in rural australia:...
Post on 16-Apr-2017
976 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Tools for integrating conservation priorities with conservation opportunities in rural Australia: Recent findings and future directions
Christopher RaymondDirector, EnviroconnectPhD Candidate, University of South AustraliaAberdeen Seminar
Dr. G. Brown (University of Queensland)
Background
• Land clearance continues to be a serious issue• Between 2000 and 2010, just under 130,000 square kilometres of forests
were converted to other uses, mainly to agricultural land, across the globe
• In the agricultural region of South Australia, only 29.5% of native vegetation remains (Environment Protection Authority, 2008)
• Need to identify priority areas for conservation and manage them for conservation outcomes
• My work – focused on the social context of conservation priorities
Recreation value
Natural
Environmental
WildlifeSocial
Communities assign values to parks
S Fleurieu Region
Background
Biodiversity Value
South Australian Murray-Darling Basin region
Mapping of Values for Ecosystem Services
Abundance of Ecosystem Services
Knowledge Gap 1
• Most conservation science studies, including my research on the mapping of social values, have focused on the identification of priority areas for conservation (conservation priority) rather than the factors that lead to effective actions (conservation opportunity).
• Consequently, the findings of conservation scientists are rarely translated into conservation action (Carpenter et al., 2009; Cash et al., 2003; Knight & Cowling, 2007; Knight, Cowling, & Campbell, 2006; Knight et al., 2006).
Argument 1: new tools are needed to better understand the linkages between areas of high ecological value (high conservation priority) and high conservation
opportunity
CONSERVATION PRIORITY
CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITY
Biological Patterns and Processes
(Ecological Values):· Surrogates; · Species richness; · Species rarity; · Spatial arrangement; · Threat; · Vulnerability; · Persistence; · (see Margules and
Pressey
Social Values:· Water· Land· Biota· Coasts
· Provisioning· Regulating· Cultural· Supporting· People
(see Raymond et al., 2009)
Economic Cost:· Acquisition costs· Management costs· Transaction costs· Damage costs· Opportunity costs
(see Naidoo et al., 2006)
SPATIAL HETEROGENEITY
Human Capital· Conservation
knowledge· Entrepreneurial
orientation· Local champions· Willingness to sell· Willingness to
participate
(See Knight et al., 2010)
Social Characteristics· Age· Gender· Education· Farmer type· Sense of belonging to
farming
(See Chapter 5 and Curtis et al., 2003. 2005)
Economic Characteristics
· Dominant land-use· Farm size· Level of farm equity· Level of off-farm
income
(See Chapter 5 and Curtis et al., 2003. 2005)
To manage heterogeneity:
Environmental policy and community
engagement approaches need to be
targeted to different levels of both priority
and opportunity across the landscape
(See Chapter 5)
Social Capital· Local networks· Broader networks· Trust in government· Wllingness to
collaborate
(See Knight et al., 2010
Social-psychological Factors
· Values· Place attachment· Beliefs· Norms· Intention
(See Chapter 6)
Knowledge Gap 2
• Environmental policies are rarely targeted at different landholder classes in Australia, such as commercial farmers and hobby farmers (see Pannell & Wilkinson, 2009).
Argument 2: Need to tailor environmental policy to regional areas based upon different landholder classes, as well as the interrelationships between high and
low conservation priority and conservation opportunity
Research Objective
• To present a method for spatially examining conservation priority and opportunity at the regional scale based on the level of planting of native vegetation on private farmland, and landholder socio-demographic and farm characteristics
Methods
South Australian Murray-Darling Basin region
• Demographics• Spans an area of just over
56,000 km2 • Around 81,000 people reside
in the region. • Land use in the region is
dominated by dryland (23,304 km2) and irrigated (1,023 km2) agricultural production
• Mail-based survey• Sent to 1,300 landholders > 2
ha of land using a Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2007)
• 52 % survey response
Sample
• Characteristics• Over half of SAMDB rural landholders completed a survey (51.7% survey
response) providing a sample of 659. • The majority of respondents were male (86.9%) and the mean age was
55 years (SD = 11.89). • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) data indicates that females
represent 25.9% of all farm owners or managers in the SAMDB
Landholder classification
Landholder class DescriptionDisengaged Landholders who have planted no
native trees and shrubs on their farm since taking over management of the farm.
Moderately engaged Landholders who have planted less than or equal to 5% of their farm area to native trees and shrubs since taking over management of the farm.
Highly engaged Landholders who planted more than 5% of their farm area to native trees and shrubs since taking over management of the farm.
• Age, education and gender• Proportionately more highly engaged than disengaged landholders were
• female (25.0 vs. 7.7%)• held tertiary, diploma or postgraduate qualifications (33.8 vs. 14.6%).
• No significant age differences were found among the three landholder classes (p > .05).
Results (part a) Relationships between socio-demographics, motivations, farm characteristics and conservation opportunity
• Income• Compared with disengaged landholders, moderately engaged
landholders were:• more likely to earn up to 25% of their income off-farm (39.3% vs. 19.6%)• less likely than highly engaged landholders to earn most (> 75%) of their
income off-farm (17.8 vs. 31.0%).
• Farming experience• Compared with moderately engaged landholders, highly engaged
landholders had significantly fewer years of farming experience, they lived on property which had been owned or operated by their families for significantly fewer years and their families had been involved in farming for significantly fewer generations (F > 13.57, p <.001).
• Motivations for planting native vegetation• Compared with moderately engaged landholders, highly engaged
landholders were:• significantly more motivated by the need to prevent soil erosion and soil
salinity• provide habitat for native plants and animals• retain the visual amenity of native vegetation (F > 4.10, p < .05).
• Farm characteristics• Moderately engaged landholders:
• managed seven times the amount of farm area (263, 913.04 ha) in the SAMDB region than highly engaged landholders (36,090.07 ha)
• had planted four-fold fewer hectares of native vegetation (1,640.75 ha vs. 7,348.51 ha).
• significantly larger mean farm areas than highly engaged landholders (1,262.74 vs. 220.06 ha, F (2, 465) = 7.00, p < .001)
• significantly smaller areas of their farm had been planted to native vegetation (7.89 vs. 44.54 ha, F (2, 465) = 5.55, p = .002)
• We identified no significant differences in the mean proportion of remnant vegetation remaining on-farm across all landholder classes (p > .05).
Results (part b) Examination of the spatial relationships between conservation priority and opportunity
Implications for environmental management
• Highly engaged landholders should be acknowledged for their efforts• Disengaged landholders should be persuaded through financial
incentives• Moderately engaged landholders should be mentored through a
network of highly engaged, commercial farmers
• More educated landholders who have more off-farm income – greater propensity to plant native vegetation, although the scale of change = lower
Limitations and future directions
• Only measured opportunity using one variable (behaviour)• Behaviour variable – does not fully reflect the level of conservation
effort
• Develop multiple indicators of conservation opportunity• Spatially compare them to indicators of conservation priority• Social learning processes to build knowledge of priority and
opportunity among multiple groups• Policy options based upon discrete levels and types of conservation
priority and opportunity
Questions?
• Christopher Raymondchris.raymond@enviroconnect.com.au
• For more information, go to www.enviroconnect.com.au, www.landcapevalues.org
• Raymond, C.M., & Brown, G. (2011). Assessing conservation opportunity on private land: Socio-economic, behavioural and spatial dimensions. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10), 2513-2523.
• Bryan, B.A., Raymond, C.M., Crossman, N.D., & King, D. (2011). Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conservation Biology, 25(1), 172-181.
top related