Systematic Conservation Planning for Private Land Can No Longer Overlook People

IF 5.5 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Carla Archibald, Brooke Williams, Ayesha Tulloch, Frankie Cho, Yi Fei Chung, Courtney Morgans, Marie C. Dade, James Brazill-Boast, Scott Benitez Hetherington, Michael J. Drielsma, Kelly Fielding, Sarah Bekessy, Daniel Lunney, Clive A. McAlpine, Jonathan R. Rhodes
{"title":"Systematic Conservation Planning for Private Land Can No Longer Overlook People","authors":"Carla Archibald,&nbsp;Brooke Williams,&nbsp;Ayesha Tulloch,&nbsp;Frankie Cho,&nbsp;Yi Fei Chung,&nbsp;Courtney Morgans,&nbsp;Marie C. Dade,&nbsp;James Brazill-Boast,&nbsp;Scott Benitez Hetherington,&nbsp;Michael J. Drielsma,&nbsp;Kelly Fielding,&nbsp;Sarah Bekessy,&nbsp;Daniel Lunney,&nbsp;Clive A. McAlpine,&nbsp;Jonathan R. Rhodes","doi":"10.1111/con4.70066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Expanding conservation on private land is essential for many countries to achieve global biodiversity conservation and restoration targets. Planning in these socially and environmentally diverse landscapes requires approaches that are fit for purpose that account for both human and ecological values. Although systematic conservation planning offers a structured framework to address human-nature interdependencies, its applicability to private land conservation is not well understood. We reviewed 66 peer-reviewed systematic conservation planning studies across 44 countries to evaluate how people, including landholders and other stakeholders, are incorporated into private land conservation planning. Although landholders and other stakeholders are central to private land conservation outcomes, 21% of studies did not consider these perspectives at all, and only 29% engaged these groups directly through stakeholder workshops, participatory planning, or landholder surveys. Most studies (73%) relied on indirect socio-economic proxies to represent social values, which may miss key insights into feasibility and long-term success. We apply the results of the review to propose an enhanced systematic conservation planning framework tailored to private land conservation contexts. We argue that when landholders’ and other stakeholders’ perspectives are integrated into the planning process, private land conservation efforts are more likely to be beneficial for both people and nature.</p>","PeriodicalId":157,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Letters","volume":"19 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/con4.70066","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Letters","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/con4.70066","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Expanding conservation on private land is essential for many countries to achieve global biodiversity conservation and restoration targets. Planning in these socially and environmentally diverse landscapes requires approaches that are fit for purpose that account for both human and ecological values. Although systematic conservation planning offers a structured framework to address human-nature interdependencies, its applicability to private land conservation is not well understood. We reviewed 66 peer-reviewed systematic conservation planning studies across 44 countries to evaluate how people, including landholders and other stakeholders, are incorporated into private land conservation planning. Although landholders and other stakeholders are central to private land conservation outcomes, 21% of studies did not consider these perspectives at all, and only 29% engaged these groups directly through stakeholder workshops, participatory planning, or landholder surveys. Most studies (73%) relied on indirect socio-economic proxies to represent social values, which may miss key insights into feasibility and long-term success. We apply the results of the review to propose an enhanced systematic conservation planning framework tailored to private land conservation contexts. We argue that when landholders’ and other stakeholders’ perspectives are integrated into the planning process, private land conservation efforts are more likely to be beneficial for both people and nature.

私有土地系统保护规划不能再忽视人
扩大私人土地保护是许多国家实现全球生物多样性保护和恢复目标的必要条件。在这些社会和环境多样化的景观中进行规划,需要采用兼顾人类和生态价值的方法。尽管系统的保护规划提供了一个结构化的框架来解决人与自然的相互依赖关系,但它对私人土地保护的适用性还没有得到很好的理解。我们回顾了44个国家66项同行评议的系统性保护规划研究,以评估包括土地所有者和其他利益相关者在内的人们如何纳入私人土地保护规划。虽然土地所有者和其他利益相关者是私人土地保护成果的核心,但21%的研究根本没有考虑这些观点,只有29%的研究通过利益相关者研讨会、参与式规划或土地所有者调查直接让这些群体参与进来。大多数研究(73%)依赖于间接的社会经济代理来代表社会价值,这可能会错过对可行性和长期成功的关键见解。我们应用检讨的结果,提出一个更完善的系统保育规划架构,以配合私人土地保育的需要。我们认为,当土地所有者和其他利益相关者的观点被纳入规划过程时,私人土地保护工作更有可能对人和自然都有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Conservation Letters
Conservation Letters BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Conservation Letters is a reputable scientific journal that is devoted to the publication of both empirical and theoretical research that has important implications for the conservation of biological diversity. The journal warmly invites submissions from various disciplines within the biological and social sciences, with a particular interest in interdisciplinary work. The primary aim is to advance both pragmatic conservation objectives and scientific knowledge. Manuscripts are subject to a rapid communication schedule, therefore they should address current and relevant topics. Research articles should effectively communicate the significance of their findings in relation to conservation policy and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书