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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cooke, B., Lane, R. (2020). Permanent Protection and the Legacies and Spatialities of Conservation Practice. In: Making Ecologies on Private Land. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31218-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31218-3_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31217-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31218-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)