Participation in biodiversity conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian landholders

Katie MOON, Chris Cocklin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Biodiversity conservation programs that appeal to landholders' motivations and minimise their barriers to participation may result in both increased uptake rates and improved ecological outcomes. To understand their motivations and barriers to conserve biodiversity, qualitative interviews were conducted with 45 landholders who had participated in one of three different programs in Queensland, Australia. The results revealed that the landholders' decisions to participate depended on the level of formal biodiversity protection offered by the program, potential changes to their property rights, personal benefits of participation, and the program objectives. Landholders' motivations related to conservation, production, financial and experimental imperatives. Common barriers to participation were lost productivity, different interpretations of what constituted " conservation" , and limits to future development and land use options. Voluntary and economic policy instruments can be used to stimulate participation and overcome barriers, but must be applied with care to reduce the creation of perverse ecological outcomes, such as slippage and low additionality.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)331-342
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Rural Studies
Volume27
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

biodiversity
conservation
participation
property rights
economic policy
right of ownership
qualitative interview
Economic Policy
appeal
land use
productivity
interpretation
programme

Cite this

@article{572abba7280244f9812d418b17ba99e4,
title = "Participation in biodiversity conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian landholders",
abstract = "Biodiversity conservation programs that appeal to landholders' motivations and minimise their barriers to participation may result in both increased uptake rates and improved ecological outcomes. To understand their motivations and barriers to conserve biodiversity, qualitative interviews were conducted with 45 landholders who had participated in one of three different programs in Queensland, Australia. The results revealed that the landholders' decisions to participate depended on the level of formal biodiversity protection offered by the program, potential changes to their property rights, personal benefits of participation, and the program objectives. Landholders' motivations related to conservation, production, financial and experimental imperatives. Common barriers to participation were lost productivity, different interpretations of what constituted {"} conservation{"} , and limits to future development and land use options. Voluntary and economic policy instruments can be used to stimulate participation and overcome barriers, but must be applied with care to reduce the creation of perverse ecological outcomes, such as slippage and low additionality.",
keywords = "Conservation, Incentives, Multifunctional, Policy instrument, Production, Program design.",
author = "Katie MOON and Chris Cocklin",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.04.001",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "331--342",
journal = "Journal of Rural Studies",
issn = "0743-0167",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "3",

}

Participation in biodiversity conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. / MOON, Katie; Cocklin, Chris.

In: Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2011, p. 331-342.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Participation in biodiversity conservation: Motivations and barriers of Australian landholders

AU - MOON, Katie

AU - Cocklin, Chris

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Biodiversity conservation programs that appeal to landholders' motivations and minimise their barriers to participation may result in both increased uptake rates and improved ecological outcomes. To understand their motivations and barriers to conserve biodiversity, qualitative interviews were conducted with 45 landholders who had participated in one of three different programs in Queensland, Australia. The results revealed that the landholders' decisions to participate depended on the level of formal biodiversity protection offered by the program, potential changes to their property rights, personal benefits of participation, and the program objectives. Landholders' motivations related to conservation, production, financial and experimental imperatives. Common barriers to participation were lost productivity, different interpretations of what constituted " conservation" , and limits to future development and land use options. Voluntary and economic policy instruments can be used to stimulate participation and overcome barriers, but must be applied with care to reduce the creation of perverse ecological outcomes, such as slippage and low additionality.

AB - Biodiversity conservation programs that appeal to landholders' motivations and minimise their barriers to participation may result in both increased uptake rates and improved ecological outcomes. To understand their motivations and barriers to conserve biodiversity, qualitative interviews were conducted with 45 landholders who had participated in one of three different programs in Queensland, Australia. The results revealed that the landholders' decisions to participate depended on the level of formal biodiversity protection offered by the program, potential changes to their property rights, personal benefits of participation, and the program objectives. Landholders' motivations related to conservation, production, financial and experimental imperatives. Common barriers to participation were lost productivity, different interpretations of what constituted " conservation" , and limits to future development and land use options. Voluntary and economic policy instruments can be used to stimulate participation and overcome barriers, but must be applied with care to reduce the creation of perverse ecological outcomes, such as slippage and low additionality.

KW - Conservation

KW - Incentives

KW - Multifunctional

KW - Policy instrument

KW - Production

KW - Program design.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.04.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.04.001

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 331

EP - 342

JO - Journal of Rural Studies

JF - Journal of Rural Studies

SN - 0743-0167

IS - 3

ER -