1
|
Buckwell A, Ribbeck M, Dyke J, Smart J, Edeson G. Identifying innovation discourses for nitrogen management in the sugarcane sector in Great Barrier Reef catchments using Q-methodology. MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN 2023; 191:114851. [PMID: 37045741 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.114851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2023] [Revised: 03/15/2023] [Accepted: 03/18/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
Dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) run-off from sugarcane farms along Australia's Great Barrier Reef (GBR) coast is implicated in poor catchment water quality and putting pressure on reef health. Reducing DIN is the focus of innovative policies to cut pollution and to maximize social benefit across economic sectors. We use Q-methodology to gain insight into discourses present amongst sugarcane sector stakeholders in GBR catchments. Issue statements, which we aligned with concepts from the Theory of Planned Behaviour, were ranked and correlations identified to generate factors that informed our descriptions of discourses. We found four discourse groups we called sector stalwarts, scientific rationalists, economic maximisers, and sector defenders. We also collected respondent demographic data from which we could judge the propensities of respondent groups to identify with different discourses. This information can help industry innovators and policymakers identify the attributes, mindsets, and appropriate language metaphors for engaging stakeholders in reducing catchment pollution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Buckwell
- Griffith Business School, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia.
| | - Maria Ribbeck
- Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, Queensland Government, Queensland, Australia
| | - Joshua Dyke
- School of Environment and Science and Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia
| | - Jim Smart
- School of Environment and Science and Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Road, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia
| | - Gregor Edeson
- Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Crosman KM, Jurcevic I, Van Holmes C, Hall CC, Allison EH. An equity lens on behavioral science for conservation. Conserv Lett 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12885] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine M. Crosman
- Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center University of Washington Seattle Washington
| | - Ines Jurcevic
- Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance University of Washington Seattle Washington
| | - Carlin Van Holmes
- Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance University of Washington Seattle Washington
| | - Crystal C. Hall
- Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance University of Washington Seattle Washington
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Villarreal-Rosas J, Wells JA, Sonter LJ, Possingham HP, Rhodes JR. The impacts of land use change on flood protection services among multiple beneficiaries. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2022; 806:150577. [PMID: 34582860 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150577] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2020] [Revised: 09/15/2021] [Accepted: 09/21/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Land use change drives significant declines in ecosystem services globally. However, we currently lack an understanding of how and where different beneficiaries of ecosystem services experience the impacts of land use change. This information is needed to identify possible inequalities in the delivery among beneficiaries, and to design policy interventions to address them. Here, we used a spatially explicit and disaggregated approach to ask how land use change affects the distribution of flood protection among three beneficiary sectors (urban residents, rural communities, and the food sector). Our study focused on the Brigalow Belt Bioregion of Australia - an area affected by widespread deforestation - and assessed the effect of land use change on flood protection between 2002 and 2015. We estimated flood protection per beneficiary sector as the total upstream runoff retention (supply) linked to areas where flood protection is required for sector-specific infrastructure (demand). We calculated changes in flood protection between 2002 and 2015 at the local government area scale and for each beneficiary sector. Using counterfactual scenarios, we identified whether changes in flood protection were driven by forest loss or changes in the extent of infrastructure at risk of flooding. We found net declines in flood protection for all sectors. Urban residents experienced the greatest decline (28%), followed by rural communities (15%), and the food sector (14%). Overall declines in flood protection across the whole region were driven primarily by forest loss. However, for some local government areas and beneficiaries, changes in flood protection were also driven by increases in forest cover or spatial changes in demand. Recognition that beneficiary sectors can be impacted via different drivers of change is fundamental to revealing highly impacted sectors. In turn, this information can be used to develop management strategies to address inequalities in the distribution of ecosystem services among beneficiaries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jaramar Villarreal-Rosas
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia.
| | - Jessie A Wells
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia.
| | - Laura J Sonter
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia.
| | - Hugh P Possingham
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia; School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia.
| | - Jonathan R Rhodes
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Eberhard R, Coggan A, Jarvis D, Hamman E, Taylor B, Baresi U, Vella K, Dean AJ, Deane F, Helmstedt K, Mayfield H. Understanding the effectiveness of policy instruments to encourage adoption of farming practices to improve water quality for the Great Barrier Reef. MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN 2021; 172:112793. [PMID: 34385021 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112793] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/31/2021] [Revised: 07/20/2021] [Accepted: 07/26/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Governments in Australia and internationally are experimenting with policy instruments to facilitate the adoption of farming practices with reduced environmental impacts. The Great Barrier Reef (Australia) is one such case, where sustained efforts over 20 years have yielded insufficient progress towards targets to reduce the impacts of agriculture on water quality in downstream marine ecosystems. We present a critical review of policy instruments as implemented in Great Barrier Reef catchments. We catalogue the evolving mix of policy instruments employed in reef programs, and examine evidence of the effectiveness of agricultural extension, financial incentives, and direct regulation of farming practices. There is little robust evidence to assess instrument effectiveness, in part due to the evolving mix of the instruments employed, weak program evaluation and heterogeneity of agricultural enterprises. We identify the need to improve the understanding of instrument fit to landholders and enterprises. We recommend a modelling approach to clarify pathways to impact and guide improved policy evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Eberhard
- School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.
| | - Anthea Coggan
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Land and Water, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Diane Jarvis
- College of Business, Law and Governance, James Cook University, Australia
| | - Evan Hamman
- School of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
| | - Bruce Taylor
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Land and Water, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Umberto Baresi
- School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
| | - Karen Vella
- School of Architecture and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
| | - Angela J Dean
- Centre for the Environment, School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
| | - Felicity Deane
- School of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
| | - Kate Helmstedt
- School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
| | - Helen Mayfield
- School of Mathematical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Williams BA, Simmons BA, Ward M, Beher J, Dean AJ, Nou T, Kenyon TM, Davey M, Melton CB, Stewart‐Sinclair PJ, Hammond NL, Massingham E, Klein CJ. The potential for applying “Nonviolent Communication” in conservation science. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.540] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Brooke A. Williams
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| | - B. Alexander Simmons
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- Centre for the Environment, School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology Queensland Australia
- Global Development Policy Center, Boston University Boston Massachusetts USA
| | - Michelle Ward
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| | - Jutta Beher
- School of Biosciences, The University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia
| | - Angela J. Dean
- Centre for the Environment, School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology Queensland Australia
| | - Tida Nou
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| | - Tania M. Kenyon
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- School Of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| | - Madeline Davey
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- School Of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| | - Courtney B. Melton
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| | - Phoebe J. Stewart‐Sinclair
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- School Of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| | - Niall L. Hammond
- Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security Griffith University Queensland Australia
| | - Emily Massingham
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- School Of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| | - Carissa J. Klein
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland Queensland Australia
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Jackson HB, Kroetz K, Sanchirico JN, Thompson A, Armsworth PR. Protected area, easement, and rental contract data reveal five communities of land protection in the United States. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS : A PUBLICATION OF THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA 2021; 31:e02322. [PMID: 33655588 DOI: 10.1002/eap.2322] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2020] [Revised: 11/19/2020] [Accepted: 12/06/2020] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Land protection efforts represent large societal investments and are critical to biodiversity conservation. Land protection involves a complex mosaic of areas managed by multiple organizations, using a variety of mechanisms to achieve different levels of protection. We develop an approach to synthesize, describe, and map this land protection diversity over large spatial scales. We use cluster analysis to find distinct "communities" of land protection based on the organizations involved, the strictness of land protection, and the protection mechanisms used. We also associate identified land protection communities with socioenvironmental variables. Applying these methods to describe land protection communities in counties across the coterminous United States, we recognize five different land protection communities. Two land protection communities occur in areas with low human population size at higher elevations and include a large amount of protected land primarily under federal management. These two community types are differentiated from one another by the particular federal agencies involved, the relative contributions of smaller actors, and the amount of protection by designations vs. conservation easements or covenants. Three remaining land protection communities have less overall protection. Land in one community is primarily protected by federally managed rental contracts and government managed easements; another is managed by a diversity of non-federal actors through fee-ownership and easements; and the third stands out for having the lowest amount of formally recorded protection overall. High elevation and poor quality soils are over-represented in U.S. protected lands. Rental contracts help fill in gaps in counties with high productivity soil while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fills in gaps in low-elevation counties. Counties with large numbers of threatened species have more and stricter protection, particularly by regional entities like water management districts. The ability to synthesize and map land protection communities can help conservation planners tailor interventions to local contexts, position local agencies to approach collaborations more strategically, and suggest new hypotheses for researchers regarding interactions among different protection mechanisms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather B Jackson
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, 569 Dabney Hall, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37996, USA
- Department of Fish, Wildlife & Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, 1474 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80523, USA
| | - Kailin Kroetz
- School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, PO Box 875502, Tempe, Arizona, 85287-5502, USA
- Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW, Washington, D.C., 20036, USA
| | - James N Sanchirico
- Resources for the Future, 1616 P St. NW, Washington, D.C., 20036, USA
- Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, California, 95616, USA
| | | | - Paul R Armsworth
- Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, 569 Dabney Hall, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37996, USA
- National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee, 1122 Volunteer Blvd., Suite 106, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37996, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Simmons BA, Wilson KA, Dean AJ. Psychosocial drivers of land management behaviour: How threats, norms, and context influence deforestation intentions. AMBIO 2021; 50:1364-1377. [PMID: 33496942 PMCID: PMC8116382 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-020-01491-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2020] [Revised: 11/06/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 05/31/2023]
Abstract
Understanding how private landholders make deforestation decisions is of paramount importance for conservation. Behavioural frameworks from the social sciences have a lot to offer researchers and practitioners, yet these insights remain underutilised in describing what drives landholders' deforestation intentions under important political, social, and management contexts. Using survey data of private landholders in Queensland, Australia, we compare the ability of two popular behavioural models to predict future deforestation intentions, and propose a more integrated behavioural model of deforestation intentions. We found that the integrated model outperformed other models, revealing the importance of threat perceptions, attitudes, and social norms for predicting landholders' deforestation intentions. Social capital, policy uncertainty, and years of experience are important contextual moderators of these psychological factors. We conclude with recommendations for promoting behaviour change in this deforestation hotspot and highlight how others can adopt similar approaches to illuminate more proximate drivers of environmental behaviours in other contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B. Alexander Simmons
- Global Development Policy Center, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215 USA
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072 Australia
| | - Kerrie A. Wilson
- Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia
| | - Angela J. Dean
- Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia
- School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4072 Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Villarreal-Rosas J, Sonter LJ, Runting RK, López-Cubillos S, Dade MC, Possingham HP, Rhodes JR. Advancing Systematic Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services. Trends Ecol Evol 2020; 35:1129-1139. [PMID: 32977982 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2020] [Revised: 08/20/2020] [Accepted: 08/26/2020] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Conservation and sustainable management activities are critical for enhancing ecosystem services. Systematic conservation planning (SCP) is a spatial decision support process used to identify the most cost-effective places for intervention and is increasingly incorporating ecosystem services thinking. Yet, there is no clear guidance on how to incorporate ecosystem service components (i.e., supply, demand, and flow) for multiple beneficiaries into the decision problem underpinning SCP. As such, conservation plans may fall short of maximizing benefits for both people and nature. We propose a benefit-based approach to integrate ecosystem service components into SCP that uses the principles of decision theory. Our approach will improve the likelihood that ecosystem service benefits are enhanced in spatial planning applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jaramar Villarreal-Rosas
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia.
| | - Laura J Sonter
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia
| | - Rebecca K Runting
- School of Geography, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
| | - Sofía López-Cubillos
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia
| | - Marie C Dade
- Department of Geography, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 0B9, Canada
| | - Hugh P Possingham
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia; School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia; The Nature Conservancy, 4245 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 100, Arlington, VA 22203-1606, USA
| | - Jonathan R Rhodes
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia; Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4067, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Simmons BA, Archibald CL, Wilson KA, Dean AJ. Program Awareness, Social Capital, and Perceptions of Trees Influence Participation in Private Land Conservation Programs in Queensland, Australia. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2020; 66:289-304. [PMID: 32588074 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-020-01321-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2020] [Accepted: 06/16/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Voluntary private land conservation (PLC) is becoming an increasingly important complement to state protected areas around the world. PLC programs can serve as valuable strategies to increase biodiversity on agricultural lands, but their effectiveness depends on high participation rates. Amidst growing concerns regarding scalability and effectiveness of conservation strategies like national parks, researchers and practitioners are looking for new strategies to increase adoption of PLC. This study investigates the demographic, social, and psychological factors associated with participation in three classes of voluntary PLC programs-grant payments, land management agreements, and covenants-and how this relates to landholders' attitudes toward tree clearing. We compare participation rates between these programs in Queensland and identify the most frequently cited reasons why land managers have or have not participated. Land managers who are more involved in agricultural organizations and whose tree clearing decisions are more influenced by the aesthetic value of trees are more likely to have participated in one or more of these programs. Participation was highly biased toward once-off grant payments, and participation in covenants was lowest of all programs. Although 58% of land managers have never participated, nearly half expressed interest in one or more programs. A lack of program knowledge and perceived losses of autonomy were the most frequently cited barriers to participation. We conclude with recommendations for increasing participation rates and raise important questions that need to be answered in order to promote a PLC culture that effectively curbs ongoing habitat degradation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Alexander Simmons
- Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.
| | - Carla L Archibald
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
| | - Kerrie A Wilson
- Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia
| | - Angela J Dean
- Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia
- School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia
| |
Collapse
|