Enablers and challenges when engaging local communities for urban biodiversity conservation in Australian cities

Abstract

Across all landscape types, environmental managers work with communities to conserve biodiversity. The effectiveness of conservation practice, however, relies on acknowledging differences in preferences and values of nature. Implementing urban conservation is challenging because cities have diverse social, cultural and ecological attributes, meaning there are no simple solutions for the management or co-management of biodiversity. There is little guidance for urban environmental managers on how to 1) engage local urban communities and 2), implement conservation actions specific to cities and their communities. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 27 environmental managers from government and not-for-profit organizations across five Australian capital cities to 1) explore how environmental managers engaged local communities, and 2) understand the factors that enabled or constrained that engagement in conservation. Our aim was to understand the enablers and constraints of engagement with a view to share insights and patterns in the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conceptual framework’s recognition of the diversity of values associated with nature’s contributions to people (NCP). We found that urban environmental managers facilitated NCP by working to improve people’s relationship with nature. Interviewees reported a range of enablers for community-based biodiversity conservation, including supportive organizational policies and strategies, community support, engaging Indigenous advisory groups, and deploying multi-use, integrative human-nature designs. Constraints and challenges included a lack of top-down commitment, reliance on individuals, and overly simplistic engagement strategies. Based on these findings, we identified opportunities for improved community engagement relevant to organizations responsible for urban environmental management.

A critical assessment of a protected area conflict analysis based on secondary data in the age of datafication

“…3.3.3. for cross-scale confirmation). Furthermore, the high absolute values of different component/factor scores for Kraków support the claim that the highest potential for complexity of clashing stakeholders and interests arises in large cities 64 , 65 .…”

Conserving urban biodiversity: Current practice, barriers, and enablers

“…Examples included engaging First Nations peoples to inform the design of new parks to support continued stewardship of the country and installing public art features that also provided habitat. The low number of actions was surprising given that improving human–nature connection is frequently highlighted as a motivation for conserving urban biodiversity and that community support is crucial for implementation (Puskás et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2021; Turo & Gardiner, 2019). Similarly, few actions involved creating new space for biodiversity in cities, with most instead focused on managing and improving existing habitats.…”

Meizi-Consuming Culture That Fostered the Sustainable Use of Plum Resources in Dali of China: An Ethnobotanical Study

“…It is also a way of preserving shared knowledge and practice in a formal way. Given that most local products with an appellation of origin are produced in extensive systems linked to local practices and biodiversity, the protection of local products will attract more attention [ 69 , 70 ]. Our case study on traditional Meizi -consuming culture in Dali shows the power and vitality of the biocultural diversity of plums.…”