Skip to main content

Toward a Conceptual Framework for Blending Social and Biophysical Attributes in Conservation Planning: A Case-Study of Privately-Conserved Lands

Abstract

There has been increasing recognition within systematic conservation planning of the need to include social data alongside biophysical assessments. However, in the approaches to identify potential conservation sites, there remains much room for improvement in the treatment of social data. In particular, few rigorous methods to account for the diversity of less-easily quantifiable social attributes that influence the implementation success of conservation sites (such as willingness to conserve) have been developed. We use a case-study analysis of private conservation areas within the Little Karoo, South Africa, as a practical example of the importance of incorporating social data into the process of selecting potential conservation sites to improve their implementation likelihood. We draw on extensive data on the social attributes of our case study obtained from a combination of survey questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. We discuss the need to determine the social attributes that are important for achieving the chosen implementation strategy by offering four tested examples of important social attributes in the Little Karoo: the willingness of landowners to take part in a stewardship arrangement, their willingness to conserve, their capacity to conserve, and the social capital among private conservation area owners. We then discuss the process of using an implementation likelihood ratio (derived from a combined measure of the social attributes) to assist the choice of potential conservation sites. We conclude by summarizing our discussion into a simple conceptual framework for identifying biophysically-valuable sites which possess a high likelihood that the desired implementation strategy will be realized on them.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • Balmford A, Cowling RM (2006) Fusion or failure? The future of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20:692–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ban NC, Hansen GJA, Jones M, Vincent ACJ (2009a) Systematic marine conservation planning in data-poor regions: socioeconomic data is essential. Marine Policy 33:794–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ban NC, Picard CR, Vincent ACJ (2009b) Comparing and integrating community-based and science-based approaches to prioritizing marine areas for protection. Conservation Biology 23:899–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond W (1997) Fire. In: Cowling RM, Richardson DM, Pierce SM (eds) The vegetation of southern Africa. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 421–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Branquart E, Verheyen K, Latham J (2008) Selection criteria of protected forest areas in Europe: the theory and the real world. Biological Conservation 141:2795–2806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunce M (2008) The ‘leisuring’ of rural landscapes in Barbados: new spatialities and the implications for sustainability in small island states. Geoforum 39:969–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter E, Adams WM, Hutton J (2008) Private protected areas: management regimes, tenure arrangements and protected area categorization in East Africa. Oryx 42:177–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowling RM, Wilhelm-Rechmann A (2007) Social assessment as a key to conservation success. Oryx 41:135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cupido CF (2005) Assessment of veld utilisation practices and veld condition in the Little Karoo. MSc Thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa

  • Dwyer C, Limb M (eds) (2001) Introduction: doing qualitative research in geography. In: Qualitative methodologies for geographers. Arnold, London, pp 1–20

  • Fitzsimons JA, Wescott G (2007) Perceptions and attitudes of land managers in multi-tenure reserve networks and the implications for conservation. Journal of Environmental Management 84:38–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimons JA, Wescott G (2008) Ecosystem conservation in multi-tenure reserve networks: the contribution of land outside publicly protected areas. Pacific Conservation Biology 14:250–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo JA, Pasquini L, Reyers B, Cowling RM (2009) The role of private conservation areas in biodiversity representation and target achievement within the Little Karoo region, South Africa. Biological Conservation 142:446–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green A, Smith SE, Lipsett-Moore G, Groves C, Peterson N, Sheppard S, Lokani P, Hamilton R, Almany J, Aitsi J, Bualia L (2009) Designing a resilient network of marine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea. Oryx, published online by Cambridge University Press, 22 Jul 2009. doi:10.1017/S0030605309990342

  • Haggerty JH, Travis WR (2006) Out of administrative control: absentee owners, resident elk and the shifting nature of wildlife management in southwestern Montana. Geoforum 37:816–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman MT, Cousins B, Meyer T, Petersen A, Hendricks H (1999) Historical and contemporary land use and the desertification of the Karoo landscape. In: Dean WRJ, Milton SJ (eds) The Karoo: ecological patterns and processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 257–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchin R, Tate NJ (1999) Conducting research in human geography: theory, methodology and practice. Prentice Hall, Harlow, 330 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein CJ, Wilson KA, Watts M, Stein J, Carwardine J, Mackey B, Possingham HP (2009) Spatial conservation prioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: a case study of Australia’s biodiversity. Biological Conservation 142:1282–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepeis P, Gill N, Chisholm L (2009) Emerging amenity landscapes: invasive weeds and land subdivision in rural Australia. Land Use Policy 26:380–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight RI (1999) Private lands: the neglected geography. Conservation Biology 13:223–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight AT, Cowling RM, Difford M, Campbell BM (2010) Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land. Conservation Biology. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01494.x

  • Knight AT, Cowling RM (2007) Embracing opportunism in the selection of priority conservation areas. Conservation Biology 21:1124–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight AT, Cowling RM (2008) Clearing the mud from the conservation opportunity debate: reply to Pressey and Bottrill. Conservation Biology 22:1346–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight AT, Cowling RM, Campbell BM (2006) An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology 20:408–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leroux SJ, Schmiegelow FKA, Cumming SG, Lessard RB, Nagy J (2007) Accounting for system dynamics in reserve design. Ecological Applications 17:1954–1966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lochner P, Weaver A, Gelderblom C, Peat R, Sandwith T, Fowkes S (2003) Aligning the diverse: the development of a biodiversity conservation strategy for the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Conservation 112:29–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low AB, Rebelo AG (1996) Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Meffe GK, Ehrenfeld D, Noss RF (2006) Conservation biology at twenty. Conservation Biology 20:595–596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittermeier RA, Hoffmann M, Pilgrim JD, Brooks TB, Mittermeier CG, Lamoreux JL, Fonseca G (2005) Hotspots revisited: earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions. Cemex, Mexico City, 392 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD, Noon BR (2007) The role of scientists in conservation planning on private lands. Conservation Biology 21:25–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403:852–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newburn D, Reed S, Berck P, Merenlender A (2005) Economics and land-use change in prioritising private land conservation. Conservation Biology 19:1411–1420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasquini L (2007) Privately-owned land and biodiversity conservation: analyzing the role of private conservation areas in the Little Karoo, South Africa. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK

  • Pasquini L, Cowling RM, Twyman C, Wainwright J (2010) Devising appropriate policies and instruments in support of private conservation areas: lessons learnt from the Klein Karoo, South Africa. Conservation Biology 24:470–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Bottrill MC (2008) Oppportunism, threats, and the evolution of systematic conservation planning. Conservation Biology 22:1340–1345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayfield B, James PMA, Fall A, Fortin M-J (2009) Comparing static versus dynamic protected areas in the Québec boreal forest. Biological Conservation 141:438–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouget M, Richardson DM, Cowling RM (2003) The current configuration of protected areas in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa—reservation bias and representation of biodiversity patterns and processes. Biological Conservation 112:129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar S, Pressey RL, Faith DP, Margules CR, Fuller T, Stoms DM, Moffett A, Wilson KA, Williams KJ, Williams PH, Andelman S (2006) Biodiversity conservation planning tools: present status and challenges for the future. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31:123–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sims-Castley R, Kerley GIH, Geach B, Langholz J (2005) Socio-economic significance of ecotourism-based private game reserves in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province. Parks 15:6–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RJ, Easton J, Nhancale BA, Armstrong AJ, Culverwell J, Dlamini D, Goodman PS, Loffler L, Matthews WS, Monadjem A, Mulqueeny CM, Ngwenya P, Ntumi CP, Soto B, Leader-Williams N (2008) Designing a transfrontier conservation landscape for the Maputaland centre of endemism using biodiversity, economic and threat data. Biological Conservation 141:2127–2138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Azevedo-Ramos C, Voll E, McDonald A, Lefebvre P, Schlesinger P (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440:520–523

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephanson SL, Mascia MB (2009) Putting people on the map: an approach to integrating social data in conservation planning. SSWG Working Paper 1. Society for Conservation Biology, Social Science Working Group, Washington, DC. Accessed online Aug 13, 2009: http://sustsci.aaas.org/files/Stephanson&MasciaWPS2009-01.pdf

  • Vaccaro I, Norman K (2008) Social Sciences and landscape analysis: opportunities for the improvement of conservation policy design. Journal of Environmental Management 88:360–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright RI (1996) Identifying priorities for the conservation of biodiversity: systematic biological criteria within a socio-political framework. In: Gaston KJ (ed) Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp 309–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallington TJ, Hobbs RJ, Moore SA (2005) Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: a review of the salient issues. Ecology and Society 10(1): Art. No. 15. Accessed online Jul 24, 2009: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art15/

  • Wolmer W (2005) Wilderness gained, wilderness lost: wildlife management and land occupations in Zimbabwe’s southeast lowveld. Journal of Historical Geography 31:260–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

L.P. was supported by a joint studentship from the Natural Environment Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK. Additional financial support was provided by the University of Sheffield, the Slawson Awards (RGS-IGB), the Dudley Stamp Memorial Trust and the Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust. All the respondents who gave up time to be interviewed are gratefully acknowledged. We thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorena Pasquini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pasquini, L., Twyman, C. & Wainwright, J. Toward a Conceptual Framework for Blending Social and Biophysical Attributes in Conservation Planning: A Case-Study of Privately-Conserved Lands. Environmental Management 46, 659–670 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9548-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9548-5

Keywords

  • Conservation planning
  • Social data
  • Private conservation areas
  • Private lands conservation
  • Reserve network design