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.