Advertisement

Introduction

  • Benjamin CookeEmail author
  • Ruth Lane
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter begins by outlining the rise of interest that private land is receiving as a land tenure for pursuing conservation. We outline the need to understand how private land conservation practices are being undertaken in the dynamic context of rural-amenity landscapes. We set up the idea of ‘conservation practice’ as something undertaken by humans and nonhumans in concert, rather than a solely human endeavour. We focus our attention on the agency of plants as part of conservation practice. This chapter introduces rural-amenity landscapes as a vital context in which to explore conservation practice, detailing the hinterland regions of Melbourne, Australia as a case study. We conclude by introducing the chapter topics: private property relations, experiential learning, landscape legacy, conservation covenants and market-based instruments.

Keywords

Conservation practice Private land conservation Exurban Rural-amenity More-than-human 

References

  1. Abrams, J., Gill, N., Gosnell, H., & Klepeis, P. (2012). Re-creating the rural, reconstructing nature: An international literature review of the environmental implications of amenity migration. Conservation and Society, 10(3), 270.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.101837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argent, N., Tonts, M., Jones, R., & Holmes, J. (2010). Demographic change in Australia’s rural landscapes (G. W. Luck, R. Black, & D. Race, Eds., pp. 23–44). Landscape Series, 12. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9654-8.Google Scholar
  3. Cadieux, K. V. (2011, July). Competing discourses of nature in exurbia. GeoJournal, 76, 341–363.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9299-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CCMA (Corangamite Catchment Management Authority). (2003). Corangamite regional catchment strategy 2003–2008. Colac: Corangamite Catchment Management Authority.Google Scholar
  5. Cooke, B. (2017). The co-presence of past and future in the practice of environmental management: Implications for rural-amenity landscapes. In Nature, temporality and environmental management: Scandinavian and Australian perspectives on peoples and landscapes (pp. 77–93). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke, B., & Lane, R. (2015). How do amenity Migrants learn to be environmental stewards of rural landscapes? Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 43–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curry, G. N., Koczberski, G., & Selwood. J. (2001). Cashing out, cashing in: Rural change on the south coast of Western Australia. Australian Geographer, 32(1), 109–124.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180020036268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gill, N., Chisholm, L., Klepeis, P., Denagamage, R., & Marthick, J. (2008). Land management and land cover on land owned by amenity oriented rural landowners in Jamberoo Valley. https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2039&context=scipapers.
  9. Gill, N., Klepeis, P., & Chisholm, L. (2010). Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53(3), 317–334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640561003612890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gosnell, H. (2011). Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal, 76(4), 303–322.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-9295-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham, M. (2008). Some thoughts about the philosophical underpinnings of Aboriginal worldviews. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 45, 1–9.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Head, L., Atchison, J., & Phillips, C. (2014). The distinctive capacities of plants: Re-thinking difference via invasive species. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40(3), 399–413.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Head, L., Larson, B., Hobbs, R., Atchison, J., Gill, N., Kull, C., & Rangan, H. (2015). Living with invasive plants in the Anthropocene: The importance of understanding practice and experience. Conservation and Society, 13, 311–318.Google Scholar
  15. Howitt, R., & Suchet-Pearson, S. (2006). Rethinking the building blocks: Ontological pluralism and the idea of ‘management’. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 88(3), 323–335.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2006.00225.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunt, S. (2014). Ontologies of indigeneity: The politics of embodying a concept. Cultural Geographies, 21(1), 27–32.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474013500226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hurley, P. T., Maccaroni, M., & Williams, A. (2017). Resistant actors, resistant landscapes? A historical political ecology of a forested conservation object in exurban southeastern Pennsylvania. Landscape Research, 42(3), 291–306.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1267131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson-Smith, D., & Kreuter, U. (2005). Understanding the multidimensionality of property rights orientations: Evidence from Utah and Texas ranchers. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 587–610.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590959578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knoot, T. G., Schulte, L. A., & Rickenbach, M. (2010). Oak conservation and restoration on private forestlands: Negotiating a social-ecological landscape. Environmental Management, 45(1), 155–164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9404-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kondo, M. C., Rivera, R., & Rullman, S. (2012). Protecting the idyll but not the environment: Second homes, amenity migration and rural exclusion in Washington State. Landscape and Urban Planning, 106(2), 174–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larsen, S., Sorenson, C., McDermott, D., Long, J., & Post, C. (2007). Place perception and social interaction on an exurban landscape in Central Colorado. The Professional Geographer, 59(4), 421–433.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00632.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social—An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. López-i-Gelats, F., Tàbara, J. D. & Bartolomé, J. (2009). The rural in dispute: Discourses of rurality in the Pyrenees. Geoforum, 40(4), 602–612.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., & Ward, N. (2003). The differentiated countryside. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Meadows, J., Herbohn, J., & Emtage, N. (2013). Supporting cooperative forest management among small-acreage lifestyle landowners in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Society & Natural Resources, 26(7), 745–761.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2012.719586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mendham, E., & Curtis, A. (2010). Taking over the reins: Trends and impacts of changes in rural property ownership. Society & Natural Resources, 23(7), 653–668.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801998893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mendham, E., Curtis, A., & Millar, J. (2012). The natural resource management implications of rural property turnover. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 5.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05071-170405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, P. B., & Hines, J. D. (2018). Rural gentrification and networks of capital accumulation—A case study of Jackson, Wyoming. Environment and Planning A, 50(7), 1473–1495.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X18778595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ngurra, D., Dadd, L., Glass, P., Scott, R., Graham, M., … Suchet-Pearson, S. (2019). Yanama budyari gumada: Reframing the urban to care as Darug Country in western Sydney. Australian Geographer, 50, 279–293.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2019.1601150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips, M. (1993). Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonisation. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(2), 123–140. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/074301679390026G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Race, D., Luck, G. W., & Black, R. (2010). Patterns, drivers and implications of demographic change in rural landscapes. In G. Luck, R. Black, & D. Race (Eds.), Demographic change in rural landscapes: What does it mean for society and the environment? (pp. 1–22). The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Suchet-Pearson, S., Wright, S., Lloyd, K., & Burarrwanga, L. (2013). Caring as country: Towards an ontology of co-becoming in natural resource management. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 54(2), 185–197.  https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Todd, Z. (2016). An indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological turn: ‘Ontology’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology, 29(1), 4–22.  https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tsing, A. L. (2015). The mushroom at the end of the world: On the possibility of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Auken, P. M. (2010). Seeing, not participating: Viewscape fetishism in American and Norwegian rural amenity areas. Human Ecology, 38(4), 521–537.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9323-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker, P. A., Marvin, S. J., & Fortmann, L. P. (2003, December). Landscape changes in Nevada County reflect social and ecological transitions. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry, 57, 115–121.Google Scholar
  39. Watts, V. (2013). Indigenous place-thought & agency amongst humans and non-humans (First Woman and Sky Woman go on a European world tour). Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1), 20–34.Google Scholar
  40. Yung, L., & Belsky, J. (2007). Private property rights and community goods: Negotiating landowner cooperation amid changing ownership on the Rocky Mountain Front. Society & Natural Resources, 20(8), 689–703.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920701216586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Global, Urban and Social StudiesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations