Social Network Analysis Identifies Key Participants in Conservation Development

Abstract

Understanding patterns of participation in private lands conservation, which is often implemented voluntarily by individual citizens and private organizations, could improve its effectiveness at combating biodiversity loss. We used social network analysis (SNA) to examine participation in conservation development (CD), a private land conservation strategy that clusters houses in a small portion of a property while preserving the remaining land as protected open space. Using data from public records for six counties in Colorado, USA, we compared CD participation patterns among counties and identified actors that most often work with others to implement CDs. We found that social network characteristics differed among counties. The network density, or proportion of connections in the network, varied from fewer than 2 to nearly 15%, and was higher in counties with smaller populations and fewer CDs. Centralization, or the degree to which connections are held disproportionately by a few key actors, was not correlated strongly with any county characteristics. Network characteristics were not correlated with the prevalence of wildlife-friendly design features in CDs. The most highly connected actors were biological and geological consultants, surveyors, and engineers. Our work demonstrates a new application of SNA to land-use planning, in which CD network patterns are examined and key actors are identified. For better conservation outcomes of CD, we recommend using network patterns to guide strategies for outreach and information dissemination, and engaging with highly connected actor types to encourage widespread adoption of best practices for CD design and stewardship.

Urban foraging: Land management policy, perspectives, and potential

“…Network analysis is a technique from information science [42] that has been used in conservation to identify key stakeholders [43][44][45] and the flow of information and trust between them [46], land use change drivers [47], habitat trees [48], and conservation planning [49] and development [50]. We use it to identify important urban land users and managers, and through them, the potential points of entry for planting and uptake of wild edible fruit species and forager-manager partnerships.…”

The Structure of Social and Environmental Accounting Research: A Citation‐Based Social Network Analysis*

“…Following the suggestions of scholars in other disciplines, such as strategic management (Ramos‐Rodríguez and Ruíz‐Navarro 2004) and information systems (Wang et al 2016), we apply SNA to understand the flow of communication, the transfer of knowledge, and the underlying structure of the SEA research field (e.g., Farr et al 2018; Peng and Dai 2020). The application of SNA has grown remarkably in recent years (Camacho et al 2020).…”

“…First, our density analysis (Farr et al 2018) sheds light on how well‐connected the SEA research network is (Abrahamson and Rosenkopf 1997; Wang et al 2016) and on how the SEA research field was founded and has evolved. Through further SNA (Farr et al 2018), we identify papers that have been acting as “gatekeepers,” controlling the flow of information (Freeman et al 1979; Wang et al 2016), and papers that serve as the main sources of knowledge (Freeman et al 1979; Wang et al 2016) in the field. We also identify the papers that were central to the foundation of SEA research.…”

Social network analysis reveals a lack of support for greenspace conservation

“…Research on the governance of urban biodiversity and ecosystem services highlights that urban greenspace conservation is mostly government-led, with stakeholders drawn from the planning and environmental management division of the government (Wilkinson et al, 2013). Yet the ability of the government to manage urban greenspaces is limited by a lack of knowledge of ecosystem functioning (Farr et al, 2018), a mismatch between administrative borders and ecologically meaningful units (Dallimer and Strange, 2015), the weakness of the state in some countries (Wilkinson et al, 2013), lack of coordination between different government bodies, and ignoring locally relevant practitioner knowledge (Ernstson et al, 2010). Additionally, incorporation of urban greenspaces in urban planning in sub-Saharan Africa relies, in part, on plans drawn up before independence.…”

“…Yet current knowledge on social networks in the context of urban greenspaces is restricted to specific projects (e.g. Ernstson et al, 2010;Farr et al, 2018), meaning their findings are less likely to be generalisable to city-wide greenspace conservation.…”