Benefits of the ballot box for species conservation

Abstract

Recent estimates reaffirm that conservation funds are insufficient to meet biodiversity conservation goals. Organisations focused on biodiversity conservation therefore need to capitalise on investments that societies make in environmental protection that provide ancillary benefits to biodiversity. Here, we undertake the first assessment of the potential ancillary benefits from the ballot box in the United States, where citizens vote on referenda to conserve lands for reasons that may not include biodiversity directly but that indirectly might enhance biodiversity conservation. Our results suggest that referenda occur in counties with significantly greater biodiversity than counties chosen at random. We also demonstrate that large potential gains for conservation are possible if the past and likely future outcomes of these ballot box measures are directly incorporated into national-scale conservation planning efforts. The possible synergies between ballot box measures and other biodiversity conservation efforts offer an under-utilised resource for supporting conservation.

An evaluation of environmental, institutional and socio-economic factors explaining successful conservation plan implementation in the north-central United States

“…Political, economic, and social factors known to influence conservation support and actions in other locations and contexts (e.g., political affiliation, income, and education of local residents; Bultena and Hoiberg, 1983;Kroetz et al, 2014;Moon et al, 2012) did not explain successful conservation plan implementation in Wisconsin, nor did local land use regulations, land availability, or the level of threat presented by current and projected future housing density. Political affiliation and income do correspond with adoption of land use regulations in the neighboring state of Michigan (Locke and Rissman, 2015).…”

“…We considered enrollment of private lands in partner-held easements to be an indicator of active partner involvement and public willingness to work with conservation partners. Spatially-weighted average mean household income, which can be related to support for conservation action (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1983;Kroetz et al, 2014). respectively, was also included within the boundary of the preceding plan).…”

“…At national levels, social and political conditions can greatly influence when major conservation actions are likely to occur (Radeloff et al, 2013). Political affiliation, income, and education have all been shown to influence support for local conservation actions, including land protection (Bultena and Hoiberg, 1983;Kroetz et al, 2014;Moon et al, 2012). Social factors specific to the planning process, such as ineffective Biological Conservation 192 (2015) [135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144] stakeholder involvement, can lead to low acceptance of plans and limited support for their implementation (Martin et al, 2012).…”

“…Spatially-weighted average proportion of population voting liberal (democratic, green party) in the 2006 gubernatorial election. Political affiliation has been shown to be related to support for conservation action(Kroetz et al, 2014).Voting wards, Wisconsin Government AccountabilityBoard (2006) 0.54 (0.25-0.85) Income…”

Trading carbon, biodiversity, and livelihoods: a landscape scale analysis of ecosystems services and trade-offs in land-use policy

“…These could translate into differences in private or community willingness to participate in conservation, such as a willingness to sell or provide land for restoration and conservation (Guerrero et al, 2010, Knight et al, 2011b, or a willingness to volunteer time and other resources (Ando and Shah, 2010, Kroetz et al, 2014. Governance characteristics can also affect political will and ability to conduct conservation activities, and may impact on likelihood or costs of conservation activity success (Eklund et al, 2011).…”