scholarly journals The Diverse Properties of Private Land Conservation in Chile: Growth and Barriers to Private Protected Areas in a Market-friendly Context

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 203 ◽  
Author(s):  
DavidR Tecklin ◽  
Claudia Sepulveda
Oryx ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Downsborough ◽  
Charlie M. Shackleton ◽  
Andrew T. Knight

AbstractSpatial prioritizations and gap analyses are increasingly undertaken to allocate conservation resources. Most spatial prioritizations are conducted without specifying the conservation instruments to be implemented and gap analyses typically assess formally protected areas but increasingly include private land conservation instruments. We examine conservancies to see if these voluntary instruments contribute towards achieving goals of South African conservation planning initiatives. We conducted a nationwide survey and interviews with conservancy members in Gauteng and the Eastern Cape. Conservancies have potential for assisting South Africa to achieve conservation planning goals at national and local scales but their inclusion in spatial prioritizations and gap analyses predicates improved protection for nature, operational refinement and increased support. We sound a warning to conservation planning initiatives that incorporate voluntary instruments on private land, and present recommendations for strengthening such instruments to make them more effective. Our findings may assist conservation planners elsewhere to design more effective conservation planning initiatives focused on private land.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Pavlacky ◽  
Christian A. Hagen ◽  
Anne M. Bartuszevige ◽  
Rich Iovanna ◽  
T. Luke George ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A Williamson ◽  
Brett G. Dickson ◽  
Mevin B. Hooten ◽  
Rose A. Graves ◽  
Mark N. Lubell ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 1930-1939 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Yeiser ◽  
John J. Morgan ◽  
Danna L. Baxley ◽  
Richard B. Chandler ◽  
James A. Martin

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Farmer ◽  
Jacob C. Brenner ◽  
Michael Drescher ◽  
Stephanie L. Dickinson ◽  
Eric G. Knackmuhs

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 1182-1189 ◽  
Author(s):  
AMREI VON HASE ◽  
MATHIEU ROUGET ◽  
RICHARD M. COWLING

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. VILLAMAGNA ◽  
L. SCOTT ◽  
J. GILLESPIE

SUMMARYProtected areas remain the most commonly used tool forin situconservation; however growth in the USA's system of public lands has stagnated while private land conservation continues to expand. Easements can provide a range of ecosystem services (ESs), but it is unknown whether conservation easements maintain ES capacities equivalent to public protected areas. Evaluation of the capacity of seven ESs on federal and state protected areas and conservation easements in the USA using spatially-explicit ES models and publicly available data indicated that ES capacities in easements were equal to or greater than capacities within state or federal protected areas for six of seven services and, when bundled together, conservation easements protected greater focal ES capacity than other conservation areas. Economic incentive programmes and regulatory mechanisms may be used to stimulate capacity improvements for surface water regulation, riparian filtration, erosion control, and carbon storage on conservation easements, and landscape-level conservation efforts should (1) continue to protect natural and uninhabited areas that provide ecosystem and biological diversity, (2) expand private conservation efforts close to human population centres, and (3) limit future development to areas with high regulating service capacity that can sustain new population growth.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document