Designing conservation tenders to support landholder participation: A framework and case study assessment

Whitten, Stuart M.; Reeson, Andrew; Windle, Jill; Rolfe, John

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.11.001

Cited by 61 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of financial incentives accords with the view that landholders should be compensated for the lost opportunities to pursue land uses that compromise nature, in their provision of ecological benefits for the public good (Morrisette 2001). Perhaps most significantly, the advertised benefits of financial incentives are frequently set against the perceived failure or limitations of other approaches to PLC, namely regulatory instruments and suasion efforts (Cocklin et al 2007, Whitten et al 2013. In this sense, the rise of financial incentives fits within a neoliberal framework for PLC and environmental policy more generally (e.g., Robertson 2004, Higgins et al 2014).…”

Section: Reviewing the Challenges For Implementing Financial Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation

Selinske¹,

Cooke²,

Torabi³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. A variety of policy instruments are used to promote the conservation of biodiversity on private land. These instruments are often employed in unison to encourage land stewardship beneficial for biodiversity across a broad range of program types, but questions remain about which instruments are the appropriate tools when seeking long-term change to land-management practice. Drawing on three case studies, two in Australia and one in South Africa, spanning various program types-a biodiverse carbon planting scheme, a covenanting program, and a voluntary stewardship program-we investigate the importance of financial incentives and other mechanisms from the landholder's perspective. From participant interviews we find that landholders have preconceived notions of stewardship ethics. Motivations to enroll into a private land conservation program are not necessarily what drives ongoing participation, and continued delivery of multiple mechanisms will likely ensure long-term landholder engagement. Financial incentives are beneficial in lowering uptake costs to landholders but building landholder capacity, management assistance, linking participants to a network of conservation landholders, and recognition of conservation efforts may be more successful in fostering long-term biodiversity stewardship. Furthermore, we argue that diverse, multiple instrument approaches are needed to provide the flexibility required for dynamic, adaptive policy responses. We raise a number of key considerations for conservation organizations regarding the appropriate mix of financial and nonfinancial components of their programs to address long-term conservation objectives.

show abstract

Section: Reviewing the Challenges For Implementing Financial Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation

Selinske¹,

Cooke²,

Torabi³

et al. 2017

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Analysis of the results from the landholder survey using small-sample econometric methods CT programs are more likely to succeed in areas characterised by strong, trusting agency-landholder relationships (Whitten et al 2013). This is also thought to apply to the adoption of innovations more broadly Respondents generally had a strong conservation ethic and did not alter their conservation management efforts significantly during or after the CT program.…”

Section: Invest In Means To Identify Low-cost Monitoring Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, greater participation is not an end in itself. Indeed, there is an optimal number of participants that depends on balancing the impact of participation on competitive behaviour, while also considering its concomitant effect on evaluation, monitoring, and other administrative costs, especially those imposed prior to contract selection (Whitten et al 2013). …”

Section: Increase Funding For Both Individual Tenders and Groups Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from agri-environment schemes in Australia: Investing in biodiversity and other ecosystem services on farms

Ansell¹,

Gibson²,

Salt³

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Funders will evaluate proposals ex ante and rank them, perhaps implicitly, in terms of the ratio of benefits promised over funds sought. Competition amongst applicants will oblige tenderers to reveal their capabilities and costs and allow the funder to select the most promising options [31]. The need to reassure funders creates an incentive for applicants to be relatively unambitious and offer outputs that can be guaranteed.…”

Section: (Interview 9)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration

Hodge

Adams

2016

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on a survey of large-scale ecological restoration initiatives, we find that managers face contradictory demands. On the one hand, they have to raise funds from a variety of sources through competitive procedures for individual projects. These projects require the specification of deliverable outputs within a relatively short project period. On the other hand, ecologists argue that the complexity of ecosystem processes means that it is not possible to know how to deliver predetermined outcomes and that governance should be adaptive, long-term and implemented through networks of stakeholders. This debate parallels a debate in public administration between New Public Management and more recent proposals for a new approach, sometimes termed Public Value Management. Both of these approaches have strengths. Projectification provides control and accountability to funders. Adaptive governance recognises complexity and provides for long-term learning, building networks and adaptive responses. We suggest an institutional architecture that aims to capture the major benefits of each approach based on public support dedicated to ecological restoration and long-term funding programmes.

show abstract

Designing conservation tenders to support landholder participation: A framework and case study assessment

Cited by 61 publications

References 34 publications

Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation

Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation

Learning from agri-environment schemes in Australia: Investing in biodiversity and other ecosystem services on farms

Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About