Social context and the role of collaborative policy making for private land conservation

Abstract

Recent decades have seen a proliferation of conservation programmes designed to encourage private landholders to protect and enhance biodiversity on their land. This paper reviews research emphasising the role of social context in shaping private land conservation (PLC) outcomes. We examine the potential for a collaborative policy-making process incorporating design and implementation of PLC programmes to reduce conflict between conservation agencies and landholders and increase community consensus around PLC issues. Collaborative partnerships nested at the sub-watershed governance level may represent the most appropriate geographic scale for engaging community interest, whilst linking PLC efforts to higher-level institutional frameworks.

Trust and trustworthiness: conceptual distinctions and their implications for natural resources management

“…Residents living at the public-private land interface are more likely to be impacted by agency management actions than residents living several kilometres away from public land. Therefore, agencies may need to place greater focus on community engagement efforts (Cooke et al 2012) and collaborative, cross-boundary management programmes (Fischer and Charnley 2012) with those landholders most likely to be impacted by agency actions.…”

The conditions under which farmers are likely to adapt their behaviour: A case study of private land conservation in the Cape Winelands, South Africa

“…The role of a champion was identified as a key pathway mechanism for enabling participation, a finding similar to the private conservation case study research emanating from USA and Australia (Cooke et al, 2012;Jansujwicz and Calhoun, 2010). A champion in this context is defined as a decision-maker tasked with one or more responsibilities depending on the area of concern, i.e.…”

Land degradation a matter of attitude? A case study from southern Transylvania (Romania)

“…Although the geomorphological processes, pedological and hydro-climatic conditions leading to land degradation are known, people have difficulties in identifying the risk (potential losses) (Bird 2009;Cooke et al 2012;Bosschaart et al 2013). Unlike hydrological and meteo-climatic phenomena, which are easily identified (obvious with rapid effects), the geomorphological and soil processes are less perceived as dangerous because they occur more slowly and their effects are noticeable only after a long time (Slovic 1992;Pagneux, G ıslad ottir, and J onsd ottir 2011).…”