A Landholder‐Based Approach to the Design of Private‐Land Conservation Programs

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.     

Social‐Psychological Principles of Community‐Based Conservation and Conservancy Motivation: Attaining Goals within an Autonomy‐Supportive Environment

Abstract: Community‐based natural resource conservation programs in developing nations face many implementation challenges underpinned by social‐psychological mechanisms. One challenge is garnering local support in an economically and socially sustainable fashion despite economic hardship and historical alienation from local resources. Unfortunately, conservationists' limited understanding of the social‐psychological mechanisms underlying participatory conservation impedes the search for appropriate solutions. We address this issue by revealing key underlying social‐psychological mechanisms of participatory conservation. Different administrative designs create social atmospheres that differentially affect endorsement of conservation goals. Certain forms of endorsement may be less effective motivators and less economically and socially sustainable than others. From a literature review we found that conservation initiatives endorsed primarily for nonautonomous instrumental reasons, such as to avoid economic fines or to secure economic rewards, are less motivating than those endorsed for autonomous reasons, such as for the opportunity for personal expression and growth. We suggest that successful participatory programs promote autonomous endorsement of conservation through an administrative framework of autonomy support—free and open democratic participation in management, substantive recognition and inclusion of local stakeholder identity, and respectful, noncoercive social interaction. This framework of the autonomy‐supportive environment (self‐determination theory) has important implications for future research into program design and incentive‐based conservation and identifies a testable social‐psychological theory of conservancy motivation.     

Carbon Payments and Low‐Cost Conservation

Abstract: A price on carbon is expected to generate demand for carbon offset schemes. This demand could drive investment in tree‐based monocultures that provide higher carbon yields than diverse plantings of native tree and shrub species, which sequester less carbon but provide greater variation in vegetation structure and composition. Economic instruments such as species conservation banking, the creation and trading of credits that represent biological‐diversity values on private land, could close the financial gap between monocultures and more diverse plantings by providing payments to individuals who plant diverse species in locations that contribute to conservation and restoration goals. We studied a highly modified agricultural system in southern Australia that is typical of many temperate agriculture zones globally (i.e., has a high proportion of endangered species, high levels of habitat fragmentation, and presence of non‐native species). We quantified the economic returns from agriculture and from carbon plantings (monoculture and mixed tree and shrubs) under six carbon‐price scenarios. We also identified high‐priority locations for restoration of cleared landscapes with mixed tree and shrub carbon plantings. Depending on the price of carbon, direct annual payments to landowners of AU$7/ha/year to $125/ha/year (US$6–120/ha/year) may be sufficient to augment economic returns from a carbon market and encourage tree plantings that contribute more to the restoration of natural systems and endangered species habitats than monocultures. Thus, areas of high priority for conservation and restoration may be restored relatively cheaply in the presence of a carbon market. Overall, however, less carbon is sequestered by mixed native tree and shrub plantings.     

Using Changes in Agricultural Utility to Quantify Future Climate‐Induced Risk to Conservation

Much of the biodiversity‐related climate change impacts research has focused on the direct effects to species and ecosystems. Far less attention has been paid to the potential ecological consequences of human efforts to address the effects of climate change, which may equal or exceed the direct effects of climate change on biodiversity. One of the most significant human responses is likely to be mediated through changes in the agricultural utility of land. As farmers adapt their practices to changing climates, they may increase pressure on some areas that are important to conserve (conservation lands) whereas lessening it on others. We quantified how the agricultural utility of South African conservation lands may be altered by climate change. We assumed that the probability of an area being farmed is linked to the economic benefits of doing so, using land productivity values to represent production benefit and topographic ruggedness as a proxy for costs associated with mechanical workability. We computed current and future values of maize and wheat production in key conservation lands using the DSSAT4.5 model and 36 crop‐climate response scenarios. Most conservation lands had, and were predicted to continue to have, low agricultural utility because of their location in rugged terrain. However, several areas were predicted to maintain or gain high agricultural utility and may therefore be at risk of near‐term or future conversion to cropland. Conversely, some areas were predicted to decrease in agricultural utility and may therefore prove easier to protect from conversion. Our study provides an approximate but readily transferable method for incorporating potential human responses to climate change into conservation planning. Uso de Cambios en la Utilidad Agrícola para Cuantificar Riesgos Futuros para la Conservación Inducidos por el Clima     

Scale Mismatches,Conservation Planning,and the Value of Social‐Network Analyses

Many of the challenges conservation professionals face can be framed as scale mismatches. The problem of scale mismatch occurs when the planning for and implementation of conservation actions is at a scale that does not reflect the scale of the conservation problem. The challenges in conservation planning related to scale mismatch include ecosystem or ecological process transcendence of governance boundaries; limited availability of fine‐resolution data; lack of operational capacity for implementation; lack of understanding of social‐ecological system components; threats to ecological diversity that operate at diverse spatial and temporal scales; mismatch between funding and the long‐term nature of ecological processes; rate of action implementation that does not reflect the rate of change of the ecological system; lack of appropriate indicators for monitoring activities; and occurrence of ecological change at scales smaller or larger than the scale of implementation or monitoring. Not recognizing and accounting for these challenges when planning for conservation can result in actions that do not address the multiscale nature of conservation problems and that do not achieve conservation objectives. Social networks link organizations and individuals across space and time and determine the scale of conservation actions; thus, an understanding of the social networks associated with conservation planning will help determine the potential for implementing conservation actions at the required scales. Social‐network analyses can be used to explore whether these networks constrain or enable key social processes and how multiple scales of action are linked. Results of network analyses can be used to mitigate scale mismatches in assessing, planning, implementing, and monitoring conservation projects. Discordancia de Escalas, Planificación de la Conservación y el Valor del Análisis de Redes Sociales     

How to Build an Efficient Conservation Fence

Abstract:  Barriers are used to achieve diverse objectives in conservation and biosecurity. In conservation management, fences are often erected to exclude introduced predators and to contain diseased animals or invasive species. Planning an efficient conservation fence involves a number of decisions, including the size and design of the enclosure. We formulated the first general framework for building a fence that minimizes long-term management costs by balancing the expense of constructing a more secure barrier against the costs of coping with more frequent failures. The approach systematically considers the range of potential solutions to a well-defined fencing problem and results in a solution that maximizes conservation return on investment. We illustrated this method by designing efficient fences to address two different conservation goals: exclusion of invasive predators from populations of threatened eastern barred bandicoots ( Perameles gunnii ) and maintenance of isolated populations of healthy Tasmanian devils ( Sarcophilus harrisii ). A systematic approach to conservation fencing allows the best fence design to be chosen quantitatively and defensibly. It also facilitates conservation decisions at a strategic level by allowing fencing to be compared transparently with alternative conservation management actions.     

How Research‐Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy

Abstract: Conservation scientists are concerned about the apparent lack of impact their research is having on policy. By better aligning research with policy needs, conservation science might become more relevant to policy and increase its real‐world salience in the conservation of biological diversity. Consequently, some conservation scientists have embarked on a variety of exercises to identify research questions that, if answered, would provide the evidence base with which to develop and implement effective conservation policies. I synthesized two existing approaches to conceptualizing research impacts. One widely used approach classifies the impacts of research as conceptual, instrumental, and symbolic. Conceptual impacts occur when policy makers are sensitized to new issues and change their beliefs or thinking. Instrumental impacts arise when scientific research has a direct effect on policy decisions. The use of scientific research results to support established policy positions are symbolic impacts. The second approach classifies research issues according to whether scientific knowledge is developed fully and whether the policy issue has been articulated clearly. I believe exercises to identify important research questions have objectives of increasing the clarity of policy issues while strengthening science–policy interactions. This may facilitate the transmission of scientific knowledge to policy makers and, potentially, accelerate the development and implementation of effective conservation policy. Other, similar types of exercises might also be useful. For example, identification of visionary science questions independent of current policy needs, prioritization of best practices for transferring scientific knowledge to policy makers, and identification of questions about human values and their role in political processes could all help advance real‐world conservation science. It is crucial for conservation scientists to understand the wide variety of ways in which their research can affect policy and be improved systematically.     

Acknowledging Conservation Trade‐Offs and Embracing Complexity

Abstract: There is a growing recognition that conservation often entails trade‐offs. A focus on trade‐offs can open the way to more complete consideration of the variety of positive and negative effects associated with conservation initiatives. In analyzing and working through conservation trade‐offs, however, it is important to embrace the complexities inherent in the social context of conservation. In particular, it is important to recognize that the consequences of conservation activities are experienced, perceived, and understood differently from different perspectives, and that these perspectives are embedded in social systems and preexisting power relations. We illustrate the role of trade‐offs in conservation and the complexities involved in understanding them with recent debates surrounding REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), a global conservation policy designed to create incentives to reduce tropical deforestation. Often portrayed in terms of the multiple benefits it may provide: poverty alleviation, biodiversity conservation, and climate‐change mitigation; REDD may involve substantial trade‐offs. The gains of REDD may be associated with a reduction in incentives for industrialized countries to decrease carbon emissions; relocation of deforestation to places unaffected by REDD; increased inequality in places where people who make their livelihood from forests have insecure land tenure; loss of biological and cultural diversity that does not directly align with REDD measurement schemes; and erosion of community‐based means of protecting forests. We believe it is important to acknowledge the potential trade‐offs involved in conservation initiatives such as REDD and to examine these trade‐offs in an open and integrative way that includes a variety of tools, methods, and points of view.     

Kibale Forest Wild Coffee: Challenges to Market‐Based Conservation in Africa

Abstract: Declining rural security and pressures to reduce public‐sector expenditures in the late 1990s spurred efforts to develop alternative funding models for Uganda's Kibale National Park (KNP). The Wild Coffee Project, established in 1999 with support from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the World Bank, and the Ford Foundation, sought to develop a market for wild coffee that had been harvested traditionally from areas within today's KNP. The Kibale Forest Foundation, a U.S.‐based nonprofit organization, was created to legalize harvests, obtain third‐party wild and organic certification, and coordinate management between KNP, the coffee industry, and local communities. Although the project was successful in legalizing, harvesting, and processing the world's first certified wild and organic coffee, efforts to gain entry into the international marketplace failed. Chief among the lessons learned from this project is that for many wild‐grown products, the value of “the story”—in both human and conservation terms—is likely to far exceed actual product values. This value differential should be captured through high‐value niche markets to avoid low commodity pricing and subsequent pressures to improve financial returns through over harvesting. In addition, local producers should hold significant assets in whatever brands are developed, creating a shared‐equity approach that serves social responsibility goals, fosters project sustainability, and ensures a steady stream of positive stories for use in marketing to build brand value. Shared equity—in this case ownership interest in the intellectual property embodied in the brand—provides a second incentive beyond transactional profits that can only be realized if resource conservation is maintained.     

Conservation Development Practices,Extent, and Land‐Use Effects in the United States

Abstract: Conservation development projects combine real‐estate development with conservation of land and other natural resources. Thousands of such projects have been conducted in the United States and other countries through the involvement of private developers, landowners, land trusts, and government agencies. Previous research has demonstrated the potential value of conservation development for conserving species, ecological functions, and other resource values on private lands, especially when traditional sources of conservation funding are not available. Nevertheless, the aggregate extent and effects of conservation development were previously unknown. To address this gap, we estimated the extent and trends of conservation development in the United States and characterized its key attributes to understand its aggregate contribution to land‐conservation and growth‐management objectives. We interviewed representatives from land trusts, planning agencies, and development companies, searched the Internet for conservation development projects and programs, and compiled existing databases of conservation development projects. We collected data on 3884 projects encompassing 1.38 million ha. About 43% of the projects targeted the conservation of specific plant or animal species or ecological communities of conservation concern; 84% targeted the protection of native ecosystems representative of the project area; and 42% provided buffers to existing protected areas. The percentage of protected land in conservation development projects ranged from <40% to >99%, and the effects of these projects on natural resources differed widely. We estimate that conservation development projects have protected roughly 4 million ha of land in the United States and account for about 25% of private‐land conservation activity nationwide.     

Use of Coarse‐Resolution Models of Species’ Distributions to Guide Local Conservation Inferences

Abstract: Distribution models are used increasingly for species conservation assessments over extensive areas, but the spatial resolution of the modeled data and, consequently, of the predictions generated directly from these models are usually too coarse for local conservation applications. Comprehensive distribution data at finer spatial resolution, however, require a level of sampling that is impractical for most species and regions. Models can be downscaled to predict distribution at finer resolutions, but this increases uncertainty because the predictive ability of models is not necessarily consistent beyond their original scale. We analyzed the performance of downscaled, previously published models of environmental favorability (a generalized linear modeling technique) for a restricted endemic insectivore, the Iberian desman (Galemys pyrenaicus), and a more widespread carnivore, the Eurasian otter (Lutra lutra), in the Iberian Peninsula. The models, built from presence–absence data at 10 × 10 km resolution, were extrapolated to a resolution 100 times finer (1 × 1 km). We compared downscaled predictions of environmental quality for the two species with published data on local observations and on important conservation sites proposed by experts. Predictions were significantly related to observed presence or absence of species and to expert selection of sampling sites and important conservation sites. Our results suggest the potential usefulness of downscaled projections of environmental quality as a proxy for expensive and time‐consuming field studies when the field studies are not feasible. This method may be valid for other similar species if coarse‐resolution distribution data are available to define high‐quality areas at a scale that is practical for the application of concrete conservation measures.     

Who's Who in Conservation Biology—an Authorship Analysis

Abstract:  As the flagship journal of the field, Conservation Biology represents a multidisciplinary, global constituency of conservation professionals—a constituency composed of more than 5200 authors representing 1500 organizations and 89 countries. Using bibliometric records of research published in Conservation Biology , I evaluated trends in authorship of research papers from 1987 to 2005. Authorship diversified and became increasingly collaborative over time. North Americans now compose one-half of primary authorship, down from 75% in the 1990s, and European primary authors contribute a quarter of the journal's contributed research. Forty-five countries were represented in volume 19 of the journal. The top three most-cited authors are Australian. The percentage of single-authored papers declined from 57% in 1987 to 18% in 2005. Collectively, academic institutions contribute the most research to Conservation Biology , although a government agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, was the single most-productive organization. The maturing of conservation biology as a discipline, the complex geographic and multidisciplinary nature of conservation questions, and the increased ease of communication in a technologically connected world contribute to the increasingly diverse and collaborative Conservation Biology authorship.     

A Framework for Assessing Supply‐Side Wildlife Conservation

Market‐based, supply‐side interventions such as domestication, cultivation, and wildlife farming have been proposed as legal substitutes for wild‐collected plants and animals in the marketplace. Based on the literature, we devised a list of the conditions under which supply‐side interventions may yield positive conservation outcomes. We applied it to the trade of the orchid Rhynchostylis gigantea, a protected ornamental plant. We conducted a survey of R. gigantea at Jatujak Market in Bangkok, Thailand. Farmed (legal) and wild (illegal, protected) specimens of R. gigantea were sold side‐by‐side at market. These results suggest farmed specimens are not being substituted for wild plants in the marketplace. For any given set of physical plant characteristics (size, condition, flowers), the origin of the plants (wild vs. farmed) did not affect price. For all price classes, farmed plants were of superior quality to wild‐collected plants on the basis of most physical variables. These results suggest wild and farmed specimens represent parallel markets and may not be substitutable goods. Our results with R. gigantea highlight a range of explanations for why supply‐side interventions may lack effectiveness, for example, consumer preferences for wild‐collected products and low financial incentives for farming. Our results suggest that market‐based conservation strategies may not be effective by themselves and may be best utilized as supplements to regulation and education. This approach represents a broad, multidisciplinary evaluation of supply‐side interventions that can be applied to other plant and animal species. Un Marco de Referencia para Evaluar la Oferta de la Conservación de Vida Silvestre     

Conservation Planning in Forest Landscapes of Fennoscandia and an Approach to the Challenge of Countdown 2010

Abstract:  Effective management of biodiversity in production landscapes requires a conservation approach that acknowledges the complexity of ecological and cultural systems in time and space. Fennoscandia has experienced major loss of forest biodiversity caused by intensive forestry. Therefore, the Countdown 2010 initiative to halt the loss of biodiversity in Europe is highly relevant to forest management in this part of the continent. As a contribution to meeting the challenge posed by Countdown 2010, we developed a spatially explicit conservation-planning exercise that used regional knowledge on forest biodiversity to provide support for managers attempting to halt further loss of biological diversity in the region. We used current data on the distribution of 169 species (including 68 red-listed species) representing different forest habitats and ecologies along with forest data within the frame of modern conservation software to devise a map of priority areas for conservation. The top 10% of priority areas contained over 75% of red-listed species locations and 41% of existing protected forest areas, but only 58% of these top priorities overlapped with core areas identified previously in a regional strategy that used more qualitative methods. We argue for aggregating present and future habitat value of single management units to landscape and regional scales to identify potential bottlenecks in habitat availability linked to landscape dynamics. To address the challenge of Countdown 2010, a general framework for forest conservation planning in Fennoscandia needs to cover different conservation issues, tools, and data needs.