Trends and values of ‘Land for Wildlife’ programs for private land conservation

Abstract

Summary The Land for Wildlife program started in Victoria in 1981 as a voluntary program with the broad aim of supporting landholders in providing habitat for wildlife on their property. The program has since spread across Australia and is implemented in a range of guises, through a variety of governance approaches. This research collected qualitative and quantitative data on Land for Wildlife programs across Australia to conduct the first national review. Data were gathered on changes in program membership to assess different participation trends. In addition, phone interviews with Land for Wildlife coordinators throughout Australia were conducted to explore how the programs are positioned in delivering biodiversity outcomes in a range of different regions. Over 14,000 properties covering 2.3 million ha are currently registered under Land for Wildlife programs. with at least 500,000 ha of habitat managed for conservation. Limited resources present a large challenge faced by a number of programs, with generally low funding and staffing resulting in restricted biodiversity focus and conservation outcomes. We suggest options to enhance the programs and propose future research directions.

Untitled

“…The research here adds to the growing body of work highlighting the challenges and opportunities to PLC and PPA schemes, not only in South Africa (Pasquini et al, 2009;Selinske et al, 2015) but in many parts of the world (e.g. Rissman & Sayre, 2012;Fitzsimons & Carr, 2014, Scrimgeour et al, 2017Prado et al, 2018). This research further aims to provide a framework and methodology for other practitioners wishing to undertake a similar high-level evaluation of the organisations implementing PLC or PPA initiatives in their own countries.…”

“…We acknowledge that a shortcoming of this research is the missing perspective of the landowners engaged in biodiversity stewardship programmes. The challenges and opportunities which exist for landowners may very likely be different to those experienced by implementation agencies (Lute et al, 2017;Prado et al, 2018), and represent essential information required for advancing the implementation of biodiversity stewardship. Given previous research in South Africa regarding landowners' perspectives (Pasquini et al, 2009;Selinske et al, 2015), this research sought to expand our knowledge by focusing primarily on implementation agencies.…”

“…Previous research on biodiversity stewardship in South Africa has focused primarily on landowners' perspectives of PLC and biodiversity stewardship (Pasquini et al, 2009;Selinske et al, 2015;Selinske et al, 2017). Landowners' perspectives are essential in structuring relevant PPA and PLC programmes; however, without well-resourced implementation agencies driving these programmes and supporting landowners, biodiversity stewardship or similar initiatives are likely to decline (Prado et al, 2018). The research presented here can help to avoid such a situation and support the sustainability of PPA and PLC initiatives, both in South Africa and globally.…”

Behavior change and sustainability of ecological restoration projects

“…For instance, there are studies reporting positive behavioral changes bolstering restoration activities, such as an absence of vandalism on the restoration site (Derak et al ). Prado et al () have reported positive effects of land conservation schemes on land owners' attitudes and engagement, over time. On the other hand, research on strategies to reverse land degradation, through the grazing ban policy and the pasture contract system, found that herders ignored policy regulations aiding restoration because the policy provisions had negatively impacted their livelihood and income (Zhao et al ).…”

Purchase, protect, resell, repeat: an effective process for conserving biodiversity on private land?

“…; Prado et al . ), permanent protection mechanisms are often preferable due to the heightened certainty that ecological values will remain safeguarded into the future. In addition, many permanent protection mechanisms enable the establishment of “privately protected areas” (PPAs) – protected areas under private governance – that are seen as increasingly important instruments for achieving Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Biodiversity Targets for ecologically representative protected area networks (Stolton et al .…”