Environmental Management

, Volume 61, Issue 5, pp 732–740 | Cite as

Social Network Analysis Identifies Key Participants in Conservation Development

  • Cooper M. Farr
  • Sarah E. Reed
  • Liba Pejchar


Understanding patterns of participation in private lands conservation, which is often implemented voluntarily by individual citizens and private organizations, could improve its effectiveness at combating biodiversity loss. We used social network analysis (SNA) to examine participation in conservation development (CD), a private land conservation strategy that clusters houses in a small portion of a property while preserving the remaining land as protected open space. Using data from public records for six counties in Colorado, USA, we compared CD participation patterns among counties and identified actors that most often work with others to implement CDs. We found that social network characteristics differed among counties. The network density, or proportion of connections in the network, varied from fewer than 2 to nearly 15%, and was higher in counties with smaller populations and fewer CDs. Centralization, or the degree to which connections are held disproportionately by a few key actors, was not correlated strongly with any county characteristics. Network characteristics were not correlated with the prevalence of wildlife-friendly design features in CDs. The most highly connected actors were biological and geological consultants, surveyors, and engineers. Our work demonstrates a new application of SNA to land-use planning, in which CD network patterns are examined and key actors are identified. For better conservation outcomes of CD, we recommend using network patterns to guide strategies for outreach and information dissemination, and engaging with highly connected actor types to encourage widespread adoption of best practices for CD design and stewardship.


Biodiversity Conservation subdivisions Private lands conservation Protected area Residential development Social network analysis 



We thank L Bailey and A Seidl for insights that helped shape the study, and J Pittman, D Bennett and two anonymous reviewers for providing constructive input on an early draft of the manuscript. We also thank A Jackson for her assistance in collecting county record data. We are grateful to the county planning offices of Boulder County, Chaffee County, Douglas County, Larimer County, Mesa County, and Routt County for help obtaining public records. Funding for this project was provided by the School of Global Environmental Sustainability, the Warner College of Natural Resources, and the USDA Forest Service.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abrahamson E, Rosenkopf L (1997) Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: a computer simulation. Organ Sci 8:289–309. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt RG (1996) Conservation design for subdivisions: a practical guide to creating open space networks. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Arlettaz R, Schaub M, Fournier J, Reichlin TS, Sierro A, Watson JEM, Braunisch V (2010) From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. Bioscience 60:835–842. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatley T (2007) Preserving biodiversity: challenges for planners. J Am Plann Assoc 66:5–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beatley T, Newman P (2008) Green urbanism down under: Learning from sustainable communities in Australia. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Ballard R, Jones GA (2011) Natural neighbors: Indigenous landscapes and eco-estates in Durban, South Africa Ann Am Assoc Geogr 101:131–148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bodin O, Crona B, Ernstson H (2006) Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective? Ecol Soc 11:r2. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burt R (2003) The social capital of structural holes. In: Guillen MF, Collins R, England P, Meyer. M (eds) The new economic sociology: developments in an emerging field. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp 148–189Google Scholar
  9. Butchart SH, Walpole MM, Collen B, Strien AV, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM et al. (2010) Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328:1164–1168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Butts CT (2010) Package ‘SNA’.
  11. Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R (2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12:11. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crona B, Bodin O (2006) What you know is who you know? Communication patterns among resource users as a prerequisite for comanagement Ecol Soc 11:7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Csardi G, Nepusz T (2006) The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJ Complex Syst 1695:2006Google Scholar
  14. Farr CM, Pejchar L, Reed SE (2017) Subdivision design and stewardship affect bird and mammal use of conservation developments. Ecol Appl 27:1236–1252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faust K (2006) Comparing social networks: size, density, and local structure. Metodološki zvezki 3:185–216Google Scholar
  16. Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks. Soc Netw 1:215–239. Scholar
  17. Göçmen ZA (2013) Barriers to successful implementation of conservation subdivision design: a closer look at land use regulations and subdivision permitting process. Landsc Urban Plan 110:123–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Göçmen ZA (2014) Exploring land developer perspectives on conservation subdivision design and environmentally sustainable land development. Environ Manag 54:1208–1222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guerrero AM, Wilson KA (2016) Using a social-ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans. Conserv Biol 31:290–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hannum C, Laposa S, Reed SE, Pejchar L, Ex L (2012) Comparative analysis of housing in conservation developments: Colorado case studies. J Sustain Real Estate 4:149–176. Google Scholar
  21. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH, Jones K (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity; patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecol Appl 15:1893–1905. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hauck J, Schmidt J, Werner A (2016) Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. Ecol Soc 21:49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hostetler M, Drake D (2009) Conservation subdivisions: a wildlife perspective. Landsc Urban Plan 90:95–101. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kamal S, Grodzinska-Jurczak M, Brown B (2015) Conservation on private land: a review of global strategies with a proposed classification system. J Environ Plan Manag 58:576–597. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kone DL (2006) Land development, 10th Edition. BuilderBooks, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Knight RL (1999) Private lands: the neglected geography. Conserv Biol 13:223–224. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamb JN, Moore KM, Norton J, Omondi EC, Laker-Ojok R, Sikuku DN, Ashilenje DS, Odera J (2015) A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda. Int J Agr Sustain 14:65–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenth BA, Knight RL, Gilgert WC (2006) Conservation value of clustered housing developments. Conserv Biol 20:1445–1456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mascia MB, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, McKean M, Turner NJ (2003) Editorial—conservation and the social sciences. Conserv Biol 17:649–650. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matous P (2015) Social networks and environmental management at multiple levels: soil conservation in Sumatra. Ecol Soc 20:37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McMahon ET, Pawlukiewicz M (2002) The practice of conservation development: lessons in success. Urban Land Institute/ The Conservation Fund Joint Forum, Chiciago, IL, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  32. Milder JC, Clark S (2011) Conservation development practices, extent, and land-use effects in the United States. Conserv Biol 25:697–707. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller JM, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conserv Biol 16:330–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller JR, Groom M, Hess GR, Steelman T, Stokes DL, Thompson J, Bowman T, Fricke L, King B, Marquardt R (2008) Biodiversity conservation in local planning. Conserv Biol 23:53–63. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mills M, Álvarez-Romero JG, Vance-Borland K, Cohen P, Pressey RL, Guerrero AM, Ernstson H (2014) Linking regional planning and local action: towards using social network analysis in systematic conservation planning. Biol Conserv 169:6–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mockrin MH, Reed SE, Pejchar L, Salo J (2017) Balancing housing growth and land conservation: conservation developments preserve private lands near protected areas. Landsc Urban Plan 157:598–607. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newman L, Dale A (2005) The role of agency in sustainable local community development. Local Environ 10:477–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Odell EA, Theobald DM, Knight RL (2003) A songbird’s case for clustered housing developments. J Am Plann Assoc 69:1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pejchar L, Morgan P, Caldwell M, Palmer C, Daily GC (2007) Evaluating the potential for conservation development: biophysical, economic, and institutional perspectives. Conserv Biol 21:69–78. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pierce SM, Cowling RM, Knight AT, Lombard AT, Rouget M, Wolf T (2005) Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: interpretation for implementation. Biol Conserv 125:441–458. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M (2009) Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 22:501–518. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pressey RL, Bottrill MC (2009) Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Oryx 43:464–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. R Development Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  44. Reed SE, Hilty JA, Theobald DM (2014) Guidelines and incentives for conservation development in local land-use regulations. Conserv Biol 28:258–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schipper J et al. (2008) The status of the world’s land and marine mammals: diversity, threat, and knowledge. Science 322:225–230. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott J (2013) Social network analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Tarhule A, Lamb PJ (2003) Climate research and seasonal forcasting for West Africans: perceptions, dissemination, and use? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 84:1741–1759. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tecklin DR, Sepulveda C (2014) The Diverse properties of private land conservation in Chile: Growth and barriers to private protected areas in a market-friendly context. Conserv and Soc 12:203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tompkins EL, Adger WN (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol Soc 9:10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vance-Borland K, Holley J (2011) Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving. Conserv Lett 4:278–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cooper M. Farr
    • 1
  • Sarah E. Reed
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liba Pejchar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Graduate Degree Program in EcologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Wildlife Conservation Society, Americas ProgramBronxUSA

Personalised recommendations