Advertisement

Permanent Protection and the Legacies and Spatialities of Conservation Practice

  • Benjamin CookeEmail author
  • Ruth Lane
Chapter

Abstract

Permanent protection through conservation covenants has emerged as a powerful mechanism for securing ecologies on private land. In this chapter, we explore how ideas of permanent protection are woven into the everyday practice of conservation examined in previous chapters. We explain how rural-amenity landholders perceive the work that their covenant is doing, and to unpack their uncertainties about the security of permanent protection, especially in light of the effect of surrounding land uses on their property. In exploring these themes, we examine differences between protecting ecological legacies through legally binding covenants, and the need to recognise and build on the legacy of experience, learning, labour and care for ecologies, as part of efforts to enable conservation outcomes beyond the tenure of a single landholder.

Keywords

Covenants Easements Conservation Nature Permanent protection 

References

  1. Adams, W. M., Hodge, I. D., & Sandbrook, L. (2014). New spaces for nature: The re-territorialisation of biodiversity conservation under neoliberalism in the UK. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 39(4), 574–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bingham, H., Fitzsimons, J. A., Redford, K. H., Mitchell, B. A., Bezaury-Creel, J., & Cumming, T. L. (2017). Privately protected areas: Advances and challenges in guidance, policy and documentation. Parks, 23(1), 13–28. http://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.PARKS-23-1HB.en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Farmer, J. R., Knapp, D., Meretsky, V. J., Chancellor, C., & Fischer, B. C. (2011). Motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements. Conservation biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 25(4), 827–834. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01686.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fitzsimons, J. A., & Carr, C. B. (2014). Conservation covenants on private land: Issues with measuring and achieving biodiversity outcomes in Australia. Environmental Management, 54(3), 606–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fletcher, R., & Breitling, J. (2012). Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. Geoforum, 43(3), 402–411.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.11.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fletcher, R., & Büscher, B. (2017). The PES conceit: Revisiting the relationship between payments for environmental services and neoliberal conservation. Ecological Economics, 132, 224–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2013). Take back the economy: An ethical guide for transforming our communities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hardy, M. J., Fitzsimons, J. A., Bekessy, S. A., & Gordon, A. (2017). Exploring the permanence of conservation covenants. Conservation Letters, 10(2), 221–230.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kay, K. (2016). Breaking the bundle of rights: Conservation easements and the legal geographies of individuating nature. Environment and Planning A, 48(3), 504–522.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15609318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klepeis, P., Gill, N., & Chisholm, L. (2009). Emerging amenity landscapes: Invasive weeds and land subdivision in rural Australia. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 380–392.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lai, P. H., & Kreuter, U. P. (2011). Examining the direct and indirect effects of environmental change and place attachment on land management decisions in the Hill Country of Texas, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(3–4), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lockie, S., & Higgins, V. (2007). Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lockwood, M., & Davidson, J. (2010). Environmental governance and the hybrid regime of Australian natural resource management. Geoforum, 41(3), 388–398.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Macnaghten, P. (2008). Embodying the environment in everyday life practices. The Sociological Review, 51(1), 63–84.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.00408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mansfield, B. (2009). Property and the remaking of nature-society relations. In B. Mansfield (Ed.), Privatization: Property and the remaking of nature-society relations (pp. 1–13). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Massey, D. (1980). The pattern of landownership and its implications for policy. Built Environment, 6(4), 263–271. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23284724.
  17. Moon, K., & Cocklin, C. (2011). A landholder-based approach to the design of private-land conservation programs. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 25(3), 493–503.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01639.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morris, A. W. (2008). Easing conservation? Conservation easements, public accountability and neoliberalism. Geoforum, 39(3), 1215–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rissman, A. R., Bihari, M., Hamilton, C., Locke, C., Lowenstein, D., Motew, M., … Smail, R. (2013). Land management restrictions and options for change in perpetual conservation easements. Environmental Management, 52(1), 277–288. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0091-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rissman, A. R., Owley, J., Shaw, M. R., & Thompson, B. B. (2015). Adapting conservation easements to climate change. Conservation Letters, 8(1), 68–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rissman, A. R., & Sayre, N. F. (2012). Conservation outcomes and social relations: A comparative study of private ranchland conservation easements. Society & Natural Resources, 25(6), 523–538.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.580419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Selinske, M. J., Cooke, B., Torabi, N., Hardy, M. J., Knight, A. T., & Bekessy, S. A. (2016). Locating financial incentives among diverse motivations for long-term private land conservation. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  23. Stuart, D., Benveniste, E., & Harris, L. M. (2014). Evaluating the use of an environmental assurance program to address pollution from United States cropland. Land Use Policy, 39, 34–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Urquhart, J., & Courtney, P. (2011). Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(7), 535–544.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.05.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Hecken, G., Bastiaensen, J., & Huybrechs, F. (2015). What’s in a name? Epistemic perspectives and Payments for Ecosystem Services policies in Nicaragua. Geoforum, 63, 55–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.05.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Global, Urban and Social StudiesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations