Division of Research & Innovation, School of Earth & Environmental Science, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia.
Conserv Biol. 2011 Jun;25(3):493-503. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01639.x. Epub 2011 Feb 10.
Many ecosystems exist primarily, or solely, on privately owned (freehold) or managed (leasehold) land. In rural and semirural areas, local and regional government agencies are commonly responsible for encouraging landholders to conserve native vegetation and species on these private properties. Yet these agencies often lack the capacity to design and implement conservation programs tailored to rural and semirural landholdings and instead offer one program to all landholders. Landholders may elect not to participate because the program is irrelevant to their property or personal needs; consequently, vegetation-retention objectives may not be achieved. We differentiated landholders in Queensland, Australia, according to whether they derived income from the land (production landholders) or not (nonproduction landholders). We compared these two groups to identify similarities and differences that may inform the use of policy instruments (e.g., voluntary, economic, and regulatory) in conservation program design. We interviewed 45 landholders participating in three different conservation agreement programs (price-based rate [property tax] rebate; market-based tender; and voluntary, permanent covenant). Production landholders were more likely to participate in short-term programs that offered large financial incentives that applied to <25% of their property. Nonproduction landholders were more likely to participate in long-term programs that were voluntary or offered small financial incentives that applied to >75% of their property. These results may be explained by significant differences in the personal circumstances of production and nonproduction landholders (income, education, health) and differences in their norms (beliefs about how an individual is expected to act) and attitudes. Knowledge of these differences may allow for development of conservation programs that better meet the needs of landholders and thus increase participation in conservation programs and retention of native vegetation.
许多生态系统主要或仅存在于私人拥有(永久业权)或管理(租赁业权)的土地上。在农村和半农村地区,地方和区域政府机构通常负责鼓励土地所有者在这些私人财产上保护本地植被和物种。然而,这些机构往往缺乏为农村和半农村土地所有者量身定制和实施保护计划的能力,而是向所有土地所有者提供一个计划。土地所有者可能选择不参与,因为该计划与他们的财产或个人需求无关;因此,植被保留目标可能无法实现。我们根据澳大利亚昆士兰州的土地所有者是否从土地中获得收入(生产土地所有者)将其区分开来,或者不(非生产土地所有者)。我们比较了这两组土地所有者,以确定可能为保护计划设计中使用政策工具(例如自愿、经济和监管)提供信息的异同。我们采访了参与三个不同保护协议计划(基于价格的费率[财产税]回扣;基于市场的招标;自愿、永久契约)的 45 位土地所有者。生产土地所有者更有可能参与提供大量经济激励措施且仅适用于其财产<25%的短期计划。非生产土地所有者更有可能参与长期计划,这些计划是自愿的或提供少量经济激励措施,适用于其财产的>75%。这些结果可以通过生产和非生产土地所有者的个人情况(收入、教育、健康)以及他们的规范(关于个人应该如何行事的信念)和态度的差异来解释。了解这些差异可能有助于制定更好地满足土地所有者需求的保护计划,从而提高参与保护计划和保留本地植被的积极性。